additional crossing of the clarence river at ......the river. the current and future needs of...
TRANSCRIPT
ADDITIONAL CROSSING OF
THE CLARENCE RIVER AT GRAFTON
Route Options Submissions Report
December 2012
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 2
Executive Summary
This report Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) is currently undertaking investigations and community
consultation to identify an additional crossing of the Clarence River at Grafton to address short-
term and long-term transport needs. A Route Options Development Report, (RODR) detailing
six route options, was placed on public exhibition in September 2012. This report, (Route
Options Submissions Report) provides a summary of the issues raised in the submissions
received during the recent phase of community consultation about the six route options put on
display. This report also provides RMS responses to the issues raised in the submissions.
Community consultation
Community consultation regarding 13 preliminary route options began in December 2010 and
concluded in March 2011. During the consultation process 41 suggested routes emerged. RMS
explored each of these routes. In June 2011, RMS published a Feasibility Assessment Report
which described the assessment undertaken on the 41 suggested routes. Twenty-five
preliminary route options in five corridors were identified for engineering and environmental
investigation.
In January 2012, six route options were announced for further investigation. The short-listed
options and short-listing process are documented in the Preliminary Route Options Report –
Final (RMS, January 2012).
On 10 September 2012 the RODR was placed on public exhibition and made available for
community comment. A detailed Community Update, explaining the route options and key
findings of the report, was made available at the same time. The RODR was available from 10
September 2012 on the RMS project website, from the project display office or by contacting the
toll free project information line.
A range of consultation activities were also carried out including:
Two staffed displays
Two information sessions
Two public forums
A radio talk-back session
An online forum
Summary of submissions
Submissions were accepted until Friday 19 October 2012. 118 submissions were received. A
summary of submissions received is outlined in Table 1.1.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 3
Table 1.1 summary of submissions received.
Submission group type Number of submissions
received
Individuals 106
Community Groups (each accompanied by a petition)
2
Government agencies 2
Businesses 3
Non-government organisations 5
Total 118
Submissions were received expressing support for and opposition to each of the options with
the majority of the submissions providing comment about why they supported or opposed an
option or options.
Many submissions either indicated a preference for an option away from the existing bridge
described as ‘out of town options’ or a ‘bypass of Grafton CBD’ or for an option near the existing
bridge, described as ‘in-town’ options.
The submissions that opposed options close to the existing bridge generally argued in favour of
options located away from and up or downstream of the existing bridge. Growth of the city and
removing heavy traffic from the CBD were cited as the primary reasons for choosing an out of
town option. Submissions opposing options close to the existing bridge included a petition of
around 1000 signatures. This petition, dated July 2010, was originally submitted to the RMS in
July 2011 and was tabled by its coordinators at the second public forum on 9 October 2012.
Supporters for options close to the existing bridge generally argued that these options would be
well used and relieve existing traffic congestion and would provide a convenient alternative for
existing communities. Some of these submissions also expressed concern about, and
opposition to, the out of town options. Among the key concerns about these was that these
options would be ineffective in reducing traffic congestion and were too expensive. A petition
with 203 signatures collected during 2012, opposed Options 14 and 15. This was also
presented to RMS during the consultation period.
While the invitation for feedback did not ask submission writers to indicate a preference for a
particular option, 97 of 118 submissions specifically expressed support for particular options.
Some submissions simply stated support for the option that was preferred. The preference
expressed for particular options is outlined in section 3.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 4
Summary of issues raised
Strong opposition was raised to every option. Support was also expressed for every option.
Submissions detailed concerns about traffic and transport, socio-economic, environmental, cost
and value for money and other matters. Key issues raised, in no particular order, are included
below:
The importance of the unique, nationally significant, historical aspects of Grafton valued by the community, including avenues and individual trees, affordable and heritage listed housing, community connectivity, local businesses and local amenities.
The need to protect the fabric of Grafton and avoid irreversible changes to areas of high amenity, heritage, natural and cultural value.
General agreement that relief of traffic congestion was required, but with disagreement about how this could be best achieved.
A desire to minimise the amount of heavy vehicle traffic within the centre of Grafton, near schools and other sensitive locations.
Concern about introducing traffic and associated noise and air quality impacts to areas currently devoid of significant traffic.
The value placed on the relationship of the town to the river and opportunities to protect and enhance recreation and natural and heritage features.
The future of the region and Grafton’s location relative to growth areas within the north coast and south east Queensland.
Transport requirements for existing and growing urban areas, agriculture and industry in the region and inter-state and the role of Summerland Way within this context.
Concern about the flooding and drainage matters that affect the town and how particular options might exacerbate them.
Alternative suggestions about how congestion might be relieved by reducing demand for car travel before a long term solution is implemented.
The need to maintain and improve the viability of bus services and ensure that bus users are not disadvantaged.
A dissatisfaction with current levels of noise and volumes and driver behaviour of heavy vehicles and B-doubles in particular.
Disagreement with the adequacy, scope and findings of the traffic investigations and the supporting traffic counts and population projections underpinning the conclusions of the RODR.
Stated lack of trust in the findings of the traffic study and components was used as an argument in support of alternative views on the use that would be made of particular options and the related cost benefit of the options.
Appreciation of the opportunity to participate in decision making but frustration with the cost, time and multiple attempts to resolve the issue.
The need to take a long term view and ensure that investigations were based on accurate information about the likely future needs and character of the city.
Ensuring the safety of other more vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists and school children.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 5
There was general agreement that any option needs to address:
The problems of congestion impeding free access between urban areas on either side of the river.
The current and future needs of Grafton, surrounding suburbs and users of regional and inter-state transport.
The delay caused by trucks and other large vehicles navigating the bridge.
Access for emergency vehicles across the river.
The impact of new works on flood flows, flood mitigation works, shifting islands.
The protection of heritage, community amenity and safety and ecologically significant areas.
It is clear that the community perceives all options as having some level of disruption to private
property and scenic values.
Community comments received on the six route options, the investigations undertaken and the
outcomes of the value management workshop will contribute to a decision on the recommended
preferred route option.
RMS aims to identify the recommended preferred option by the end of 2012 for community
comment.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 6
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................9
1.1 Purpose of the report ...................................................................................................9
1.2 Project objectives ........................................................................................................9
1.3 Background .................................................................................................................9
1.4 The short-listed options ............................................................................................. 10
1.5 Related projects ......................................................................................................... 12
2 Display of the Route Options Development Report ............................................................ 12
2.1 The Route Options Development Report ................................................................... 12
2.2 Public exhibition ......................................................................................................... 12
2.3 Other consultation ..................................................................................................... 13
2.4 Seeking community feedback .................................................................................... 14
2.5 Submissions and petitions received ........................................................................... 14
2.6 Categorisation of the submissions ............................................................................. 15
3 Summary of issues raised in submissions ......................................................................... 16
4 Issues and responses to community feedback .................................................................. 19
4.1 Traffic and Transport ................................................................................................. 20
4.1.1 Traffic congestion - submissions ..................................................................... 20
4.1.2 Traffic congestion - RMS response ................................................................. 22
4.1.3 Heavy vehicles and freight networks – submissions .................................... 25
4.1.4 Heavy vehicles and freight networks - RMS response ............................... 27
4.1.5 Connectivity - submissions ............................................................................... 28
4.1.6 Connectivity – RMS response .......................................................................... 29
4.1.7 Emergency vehicles - submissions ................................................................. 30
4.1.8 Emergency vehicles – RMS response ............................................................ 31
4.1.9 Public Transport – Submissions ...................................................................... 31
4.1.10 Public Transport – RMS response .................................................................. 32
4.1.11 Safety – Submissions ........................................................................................ 32
4.1.12 Safety – RMS Response ................................................................................... 33
4.1.13 Local road impacts - submissions ................................................................... 34
4.1.14 Local road impacts – RMS response .............................................................. 35
4.1.15 Traffic study and demographics – submissions ............................................ 36
4.1.16 Traffic Study – RMS response ......................................................................... 38
4.1.17 Upgrade of the Pacific Highway – submissions ............................................ 43
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 7
4.1.18 Upgrade of the Pacific Highway – RMS response ........................................ 43
4.1.19 Construction issues – submissions ................................................................. 44
4.1.20 Construction issues – RMS response ............................................................. 44
4.1.21 Design – Submissions ....................................................................................... 44
4.1.22 Design – RMS response ................................................................................... 46
4.2 Environmental impacts .............................................................................................. 50
4.2.1 Noise and vibration - submissions ................................................................... 50
4.2.2 Noise and vibration – RMS response ............................................................. 52
4.2.3 Air quality – submissions .................................................................................. 55
4.2.4 Air quality – RMS response .............................................................................. 55
4.2.5 Social impacts – submissions .......................................................................... 56
4.2.6 Social impacts – RMS response ...................................................................... 57
4.2.7 Amenity streetscape and views - submissions .............................................. 58
4.2.8 Amenity streetscape and views – RMS response......................................... 60
4.2.9 Agriculture – submissions ................................................................................. 61
4.2.10 Agriculture – RMS response............................................................................. 61
4.2.11 Property acquisition – submissions ................................................................. 62
4.2.12 Property acquisition – RMS response............................................................. 62
4.2.13 Navigation and river use – submissions ......................................................... 63
4.2.14 Navigation and river use – RMS response .................................................... 64
4.2.15 Flooding – submissions ..................................................................................... 65
4.2.16 Flooding – RMS response ................................................................................ 66
4.2.17 Fauna and Flora – submissions ....................................................................... 69
4.2.18 Fauna and Flora – RMS response .................................................................. 70
4.2.19 Non-Aboriginal heritage – submissions .......................................................... 71
4.2.20 Non-Aboriginal heritage – RMS Response .................................................... 72
4.2.21 Aboriginal heritage – submissions ................................................................... 74
4.2.22 Aboriginal heritage – RMS response .............................................................. 74
4.2.23 Other environmental issues – submissions ................................................... 75
4.2.24 Other environmental issues – RMS response ............................................... 75
4.3 Cost benefit analysis and value for money ................................................................. 76
4.3.1 Cost benefit analysis– submissions ................................................................ 76
4.3.2 Cost benefit analysis – RMS response ........................................................... 78
4.4 Consultation process ................................................................................................. 79
4.4.1 Consultation process – submissions ............................................................... 79
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 8
4.4.2 Consultation process – RMS response .......................................................... 80
4.5 Summary of responses to feedback ........................................................................... 82
5 Summary of other community feedback ............................................................................ 83
5.1 Summary of online comments ................................................................................... 83
5.2 Summary of informal feedback at staffed displays ..................................................... 83
5.3 Overview of the public forums .................................................................................... 83
5.4 Value management workshop ................................................................................... 84
6 Next steps ......................................................................................................................... 84
Appendix A Summary of Community Consultation Activities for the RODR
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 9
1 Introduction
1.1 Purpose of the report
Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) is currently undertaking investigations and community
consultation to identify an additional crossing of the Clarence River at Grafton to address short-
term and long-term transport needs. A Route Options Development Report (RODR), detailing
six short-listed route options, was placed on public exhibition in September 2012.
This report, (Route Options Submissions Report) provides a summary of the issues raised in the
submissions received following the public exhibition of the Route Options Development Report
(RODR).
An overview of the issues that were raised in submissions is provided in section 3. More detail
about the issues raised and RMS’ responses to them are included in section 4.
1.2 Project objectives
The key objectives for the additional crossing are to:
Enhance road safety for all road users over the length of the project
Improve traffic efficiency between and within Grafton and South Grafton
Support regional and local economic development
Involve all stakeholders and consider their interests
Provide value for money
Minimise impact on the environment.
1.3 Background
The Grafton Bridge is a heavily used crossing of the Clarence River connecting south and north
Grafton and the greater Grafton community. Summerland Way, a north / south inter and intra-
State route to the Pacific Highway crosses the bridge. Grafton Bridge is situated towards the
southern end of Summerland Way near the convergence of the Gwydir and Pacific Highways. It
is congested in morning and afternoon peaks. The “kinks” in the bridge cause delay of traffic
when large vehicles cross the bridge. The North Coast rail line is also accommodated by the
bridge. The NSW government has asked Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) to investigate an
additional crossing to address short term and long term transport needs for the road crossing of
the Clarence River.
Planning for an additional crossing of the Clarence River at Grafton started in 2002. These
investigations did not reach the implementation stage and were deferred in September 2005.
The current program of investigation restarted in 2009. In December 2010 RMS (formerly Roads
and Traffic Authority (RTA)) announced a revised approach to engage more effectively with the
community and stakeholders in identifying a preferred route for an additional crossing. A
detailed outline of the background to this project is outlined in the RODR.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 10
Consultation regarding 13 preliminary route options began in December 2010 and concluded in
March 2011. During the consultation process 41 suggested routes emerged. In June 2011, RMS
published a Feasibility Assessment Report which described the assessment undertaken on the
41 suggested routes. Twenty-five preliminary route options in five corridors were identified for
engineering and environmental investigation.
In January 2012, six route options were announced for further investigation. The process to
short-list the options from 25 to six route options and results of the technical and environmental
investigations are documented in the Preliminary Route Options Report – Final (January 2012).
Since the announcement of the six short-listed options, RMS has completed design refinements
on these options and undertaken additional field and technical investigations. The Route
Options Development Report (RODR) (September 2012) describes these investigations.
1.4 The short-listed options
The six short-listed options included in the RODR are: Option E Approximately 1km upstream of the existing bridge - from Cowan Street, South Grafton to
Villiers Street, Grafton. New bridge would have one lane in each direction. Existing bridge would
remain one lane in each direction.
Option A Adjacent to the existing bridge upstream – from Bent Street, South Grafton to Villiers Street,
Grafton via Fitzroy Street. New bridge would have one lane southbound and two lanes
northbound. Existing bridge would become one lane southbound.
Option C Adjacent to the existing bridge downstream – from the junction of the Pacific and Gwydir
Highways, South Grafton to Villiers Street, Grafton via Pound Street. New bridge would have
one lane in each direction. Existing bridge would remain one lane in each direction.
Option 11 Approximately 1km downstream of the existing bridge - from the Pacific Highway near McClaers
Lane north of South Grafton to Villiers Street, Grafton via Fry Street. New bridge would have
one lane in each direction. Existing bridge would remain one lane in each direction.
Option 14 Approximately 2.5km downstream of the existing bridge - from the junction of the Pacific
Highway and Centenary Drive, north of South Grafton to Turf Street (Summerland Way),
Grafton via Kirchner and North Streets. New bridge would have one lane in each direction.
Existing bridge would remain one lane in each direction.
Option 15 Approximately 2.5km downstream of the existing bridge - from the junction of the Pacific
Highway and Centenary Drive, north of South Grafton to Summerland Way, Grafton north of
North Street via Kirchner Street. New bridge would have one lane in each direction. Existing
bridge would remain one lane in each direction.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 11
All options include ancillary works on roads affected by the route and all involve the acquisition
of property to greater or lesser extents. The refined route options are summarised in a
Community Update that was made widely available during the display of the RODR. Detailed
descriptions of the options are provided in the RODR.
Figure 2 Source: Route Options Development Report 2012
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 12
1.5 Related projects
When considering the submissions received it is important to place this project within the
context of the overall improvement of the Pacific Highway. While the Pacific Highway does
not currently run through the centre of Grafton it brings traffic to within 2km of the existing
river crossing. The Gwydir Highway runs south of the river and connects with the Pacific
Highway east of the railway. Summerland Way runs from the Gwydir Highway to the north of
Grafton and traffic on this route currently uses the existing bridge.
RMS is continuing to upgrade the Pacific Highway. Planning relating to the Pacific Highway
includes a major diversion of the Pacific Highway from Glenugie south of Grafton to Tyndale
north of Grafton. With this deviation the Pacific Highway would be relocated approximately
20km east of Grafton.
2 Display of the Route Options Development Report
2.1 The Route Options Development Report
The RODR (September 2012) describes the completed investigations of six short-listed
route options. It assesses the six route options using technical and environmental
investigations and describes the preliminary concept designs for each of the options. It
includes technical papers on the following topics:
Traffic assessment
Social and economic issues
Strategic cost estimates
Economic evaluation
Noise assessment
Aboriginal heritage
Non-Aboriginal heritage
Ecology
Landscape and urban character
Flooding
Geotechnical assessment for route options
2.2 Public exhibition
The RODR for the project was placed on public exhibition on the RMS project website from
10 September 2012. Copies were also made available for collection at the following
locations:
RMS display office 21 Prince Street Grafton
Grafton Shoppingworld staffed displays
Grafton Community Centre community information sessions
South Grafton Ex-Servicemen’s Club community information sessions
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 13
Two staffed displays, two information sessions and two public forums were held during the
exhibition period. The project website provided up to date information including simulations
of the traffic modelling for each option, interactive maps showing issues and potential
constraints associated with planning an additional crossing of the Clarence River and a
moderated feedback forum. The toll free project information line for the project and email
allowed members of the community and other stakeholders to contact the project team with
any comments or questions they had regarding the technical review.
Submissions were invited from the community and other stakeholders. Submissions were
originally requested by 10 October 2012 but this was extended to 12 October 2012 following
the addition of a second public forum. The extension of submissions was announced on 18
September 2012 and advertised widely, including on the RMS project website. A full list of
consultation activities, dates, times and methods is outlined in Appendix A.
A public forum on the short-listed options was scheduled to be held at 6pm Tuesday 18
September 2012 at the Grafton Community Centre. The forum was set-up to provide
community stakeholders with an opportunity to express their views on the short-listed
options.
A briefing session for the community presenters at the forum was held on Friday
14 September 2012. In response to requests from the community representatives at the
briefing session, RMS agreed to:
Alter the public forum on the evening of Tuesday 18 September to provide more time
for the project team to outline the results of the investigations into the short-listed
options.
Hold a second public forum on the evening of Tuesday 9 October to provide
community stakeholders with an opportunity to comment on the short-listed options.
Extend the closing date for submissions to Friday 12 October 2012.
2.3 Other consultation
Consultation with key stakeholders was carried out by RMS both prior to, during and after
the exhibition period. This included a number of meetings on request by individual property
owners and other stakeholders including Grafton Chamber of Commerce and Industry,
Emergency Services groups and the Clarence Valley Council. Some individuals and
organisations requested further information during the exhibition period.
During the display period, members of the project team and the community participated in a
talk-back session on local radio station 2GF.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 14
2.4 Seeking community feedback
To inform the community about the RODR display, the project team undertook the following activities:
A direct mail out of letters and the Community Update to owners and occupiers of properties potentially directly affected by any of the route options
Telephone calls to owners and occupiers of properties potentially directly affected by any of the route options
Distribution of the Community Update to owners and occupiers of properties adjacent to the route options
Post card mail out inviting input on the options to 30,000 residents in the wider Clarence Valley
Advertising in local papers and radio stations
The Community Update was made widely available, including for collection at the static and staffed displays
Included relevant information on the project website
Email from Grafton Bridge email to the email addresses on database. Submissions on the RODR could be provided:
At staffed displays and information sessions, recorded by the project team
By mail or hand delivery
By email
By uploading to the project website
By telephone to the project office and 1800 number Submissions were received via all of these methods. As well as providing general feedback, stakeholders were asked to address the following specific questions:
What do you think is the most important consideration when determining the preferred route option?
What do you like about some of the options?
What don’t you like about some of the options?
2.5 Submissions and petitions received
Submissions were accepted until Friday 19 October 2012. 118 submissions were received. A summary of submissions received is outlined in Table 2.1.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 15
Table 2.1 summary of submissions received.
Submission group type Number of submissions received
Individuals 106
Community Groups
(each accompanied by a petition)
2
Government agencies 2
Businesses 3
Non-government organisations 5
Total 118
Two petitions were received by the project team. One petition included 203 signatures
collected in 2012 and expressed opposition for an option downstream of the existing bridge,
specifically referring to Options 14 and 15.
The other petition was a copy of a petition originally submitted in 2011 that was resubmitted
during the exhibition period. This petition included about 1000 signatures collected during
2010 and 2011 and showed opposition to any option near the existing bridge. Both petitions
were coordinated by community groups that have maintained an interest in reaching a
decision on the project and participated in the public forums.
All feedback from submissions received is summarised in section 3 below. A detailed
summary of submissions was documented in the Draft Route Options Community Feedback
Report, October 2012 that was provided to participants in the Value Management Workshop
and made available on the RMS website.
2.6 Categorisation of the submissions
A summary of the issues raised in the submissions is provided in section 3. The issues are
grouped thematically around the following categories and topics:
Transport and traffic
Traffic congestion
Heavy vehicles and freight networks
Connectivity
Emergency vehicles
Public transport
Safety
Local road impacts
Traffic study
Upgrade of Pacific Highway
Construction issues
Design and options and suggested modifications
Implications for the railway
Alternative suggestions
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 16
Socio-economic issues
Noise and vibration
Air quality
Social Impact
Amenity/ streetscape/ views
Economic development
Urban development
Agriculture
Property acquisition
River use
Cycling
Public health Environmental impacts
Flooding and river flow
Fauna
Flora
Non-aboriginal heritage
Aboriginal heritage
Other environmental issues Cost benefit and value for money
Value for money Process
Consultation
Value Management Study
3 Summary of issues raised in submissions Submissions covered a wide range of issues of concern to stakeholders and the community.
One issue raised in many submissions centred on a key aim of the project, to improve traffic
efficiency for travel between Grafton and South Grafton. However, submission writers were
divided on the core goal of the crossing.
Those in favour of out of town options focused on the need to remove traffic from the centre
of Grafton. Those in favour of the options close to the existing bridge focussed on the need
to relieve existing congestion. Strong opposition was raised to every option by one or more
submission writers detailing functional, socio-economic, environmental, cost and value for
money and other concerns. Key issues raised, in no particular order, were:
The importance of the unique, nationally significant, historical aspects of Grafton valued by the community, including avenues and individual trees, affordable and heritage listed housing, community connectivity, local businesses and local amenities.
The need to protect the fabric of Grafton and avoid irreversible changes to areas of high amenity, heritage, natural and cultural value.
General agreement that relief of traffic congestion was required, but with disagreement about how this could be best achieved.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 17
Concern about introducing traffic and associated noise and air quality impacts to areas currently devoid of significant traffic.
A desire to minimise the amount of heavy vehicle traffic within the centre of Grafton, near schools and other sensitive locations.
The value placed on the relationship of the town to the river and opportunities to protect and enhance recreation and natural and heritage features.
The future of the region and Grafton’s location relative to growth areas within the north coast and south east Queensland.
Transport requirements for existing and growing urban areas, agriculture and industry in the region and inter-state and the role of Summerland Way within this context.
Concern about the flooding and drainage matters that affect the town and how particular options might exacerbate them.
Alternative suggestions about how congestion might be relieved by reducing demand for car travel before a long term solution is implemented.
The need to maintain and improve the viability of bus services and ensure that bus users are not disadvantaged.
A dissatisfaction with current levels of noise and volumes and driver behaviour of heavy vehicles and B-doubles in particular.
Disagreement with the adequacy, scope and findings of the traffic investigations and the supporting traffic counts and population projections underpinning the conclusions of the RODR.
Stated lack of trust in the findings of the traffic study and components is used as an argument in support of alternative views on the use that would be made of particular options and the related cost benefit of the options.
Appreciation of the opportunity to participate in decision making but frustration with the cost, time and multiple attempts to resolve the issue.
The need to take a long term view and ensure that investigations were based on accurate information about the likely future needs and character of the city.
Ensuring the safety of other more vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists and school children.
There was general agreement that any option needs to address:
The problems of congestion impeding free access between urban areas on either side of the river.
The delay caused by trucks and other large vehicles navigating the bridge.
The current and future needs of Grafton, surrounding suburbs and users of regional and inter-state transport.
Mitigation of the impacts of any option on noise, air quality and socio-economic aspects.
Access for emergency vehicles across the river.
The impact of new works on flood flows, flood mitigation works, shifting islands.
The protection of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal heritage, community amenity and safety and ecologically significant areas.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 18
Many submissions, whether in favour of in or out of town options, expressed concern that
heavy vehicles in the centre of town pose a safety hazard. Submissions also observed that
the existing noise and air quality impacts of these vehicles were currently a problem.
B-double traffic is of particular concern to the community and the need for these trucks to
travel within the centre of Grafton was questioned. Action to better understand, manage and
limit this form of traffic was requested by residents from all areas within Grafton.
Options E, A, and C drew criticism for the potential to:
contribute significantly to noise and air pollution
affect quality of life and economic activity
affect Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal heritage
severely affect heritage buildings and streetscapes
require the removal of significant street trees Option 11 drew criticism for the potential to:
introduce heavy traffic to currently quiet residential areas
create noise, pollution, privacy, parking and amenity issues.
remove the viability of productive farmland Options 14 and 15 drew criticism for the potential to:
remove the viability of productive farmland
affect the aesthetic and recreational quality of river
disrupt sites of indigenous significance
affect bird life
be poorly used by people within Grafton and South Grafton.
cost substantially more than alternatives. Many submissions argued in favour of the options skirting the city (generally Options 14 and
or 15) on the basis that these options would allow traffic to “bypass” the CBD. A strong
theme of the submissions that supported Options 11, 14 and or 15, was that much of the
traffic using the existing bridge is through traffic and not local traffic. Submissions in favour of
these options generally argued that trucks and through traffic did not need to access the
CBD. Some submissions in favour of the out of town options in particular challenged the
basis for the conclusions of the RODR’s traffic study.
Some submissions in favour of out of town options argued that these would be beneficial to
existing and future residents of the city. In particular the ability of the out of town options to
service the greater Grafton areas of Junction Hill, Clarenza and the lower river was
mentioned.
A number of submissions argued that the core purpose of the project was to facilitate local
traffic flow and argued that out of town or bypass options would not be used and would do
little to relieve existing congestion. Many of these submissions observed that options close
to the existing bridge would relieve congestion and be used primarily by local traffic (within
greater Grafton).
While the invitation for feedback did not ask submission writers to vote for or specify a
preference for a particular option, 97 of 118 submissions specifically expressed support for
particular options. Some submissions expressed specific opposition to a particular option
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 19
while others debated the merits and disadvantages of all options. As well as arguing in
favour of their preferred option, many respondents argued against the option that they
opposed. Petitions are included in the total of 118 but not in the total of 97.
Table 3.1 outlines the preferences expressed in submissions.
Table 3.1 Support for particular options
Option Number of submissions supporting
option(s)
Single option supported
E 12
A 9
C 8
11 8
14 3
15 18
More than one option supported
E and C 1
E and 11 1
E, 11 and 15 1
E and 15 1
A modified 1
A and C 2
C modified 1
C, 11, 14 and 15 1
11, 14 and 15 2
14 and 15 24
14, 15 modified 1
15 modified 3
TOTAL 97
4 Issues and responses to community feedback
Issues raised by the community and stakeholders are summarised in the tables below. Many
submissions writers raised similar issues. The summary table below indicates in which
submission an issue was raised. Submissions were categorised by themes as outlined in
section 2.6 above. The issues are numbered but this does not reflect an order of priority.
RMS’ responses to submissions are based on the technical studies that were prepared for
the RODR. These studies were prepared to assist RMS and the community to compare the
six short listed route options and to identify a preferred option. Technical studies also aimed
to identify any potential impacts of the options that could not be mitigated.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 20
In some cases, a detailed evaluation of the issues raised in submissions will only occur after
a preferred option is selected. This includes those issues that relate to concept design,
environmental assessment or construction methodologies.
Once funding availability is determined, the concept design for the preferred option would be
refined and a detailed environmental impact assessment would be displayed for community
and stakeholder comment.
4.1 Traffic and Transport
4.1.1 Traffic congestion - submissions
Issue raised in submission Submission
number
Section
Addressed
Traffic congestion
1. In town options (E, A and C) would promote and
relocate congestion by diverting traffic through the
CBD.
3, 8,13,15,19,36,40,
43, 52,78, 98, 52, 71,
76, 78, 105, P2
(petition)
4.1.2.1 & 4.1.2.4
2. Options would take some time to implement and
demand management should be considered
immediately.
84,116 4.1.2.2
3. Options 14 and 15 would not be used and
congestion would persist and worsen.
7,21,22,31,
33,36,62,67,78,
113,114,118 P1
(petition)
4.1.2.1
4. Option 11 is an ineffective option and would direct
traffic to an area currently devoid of traffic and be
ineffective for buses and B-doubles
3, 9,21,,22,25,
35,36,50,62,
67,76,98,114,118
4.1.2.1 & 4.2.2.2
5. Options in reasonable proximity to the bridge
would be used and would relieve congestion.
101,104, P1,
113,114
4.1.2.1
6. Options 14 and 15 are best for the long term to
remove heavy vehicles from the CBD and prevent
congestion associated with growth within the
region and interstate.
3,9,10,14,15,16,19,
23,24,25, 28,30,39,
42,43,44,46,50,52,
60,65,66,76,77,90,
94, 96,97, 105,115
4.1.2.1 & 4.1.4.1
7. Option 15 has the greatest traffic efficiency and
would enable heavy vehicles (especially B-
doubles) to bypass city streets, hockey fields,
showgrounds and Westlawn School, increasing
the amenity of the town.
3,4,13,14,18,27,44,
54,60,68,69,71,79,
90,93
4.1.2.1 & 4.1.4.1
8. Options that do not address bends would not
relieve congestion.
21 4.1.2.4
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 21
Issue raised in submission Submission
number
Section
Addressed
Traffic congestion
9. Congestion around Grafton Hospital must be
relieved and arrested. Options 14 and 15
preferred for this.
60,76 4.1.2.1 & 4.1.2.3
10. Without two lanes on approach to any new bridge
congestion, would not be relieved.
71 4.1.2.4
11. Widening of roads would be required with some
options, would disrupt local traffic and has not
been anticipated in the RODR.
78 4.1.14.1
12. Existing congestion is related to school traffic and
this could be addressed.
107 4.1.2.1
13. Even with a new bridge B-doubles and trucks
through Grafton would create congestion as their
numbers grow.
P2 4.1.2.1 & 4.1.4.1
14. Option 15 would reduce traffic on the existing
bridge and operate as an overflow for peak hour
traffic.
13,15,90,115 4.1.2.1 &
4.1.16.1
15. Option 15 would not solve the projected increase
in local traffic travelling between Grafton and
South Grafton using the existing bridge.
79 4.1.2.1
16. Demand management could include financial
incentives; vehicle movement controls and
strategies; user pays strategies; parking
strategies; public transport initiatives; improving
and promoting bicycle and pedestrian security,
safety and access; car-pooling, education about
advantages of buses.
96,116 4.1.2.2
17. Option E and A would create a bottleneck at
Fitzroy and Villiers Street.
118 4.1.2.4
18. Option C would be best and would deliver the
largest expected redirection of traffic from the
existing bridge, improving traffic flow without
bottle necks.
20,33,61,62,74,95,11
8
4.1.2.1
19. In town options would create connectivity issues
with the closure of local roads.
P2 4.1.6.1
20. Option C would retain congestion unless bridge
improvements or one-way streets were
implemented.
22,111,114 4.1.2.1 & 4.1.2.2
21. Option E would bring higher levels of traffic to the
CBD, has the lowest projected usage, would
create a bottle neck and would be underutilised.
22,43,89,98,118 4.1.2.1
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 22
Issue raised in submission Submission
number
Section
Addressed
Traffic congestion
22. Any option other than A would have little effect in
reducing Bent and Fitzroy Street’s peak hour
congestion.
75 4.1.2.1
23. Option A would not solve the expected growth in
traffic.
79 4.1.2.1
24. Options E and C would address traffic congestion
and benefit local traffic.
79 4.1.2.1
25. Options A and C do not improve traffic compared
with 11 and E.
104 4.1.2.1
26. Option A would provide a quick trip for South
Grafton residents and is the best option to
improve cross river traffic flow.
9,17,58,75 4.1.2.1 & 4.1.6.1
27. Option C is the second best option to improve
cross river traffic flow.
9 4.1.2.1
28. Options A and C would provide the required relief
for traffic flow and could be used for each bridge
to have all traffic one way.
22,45,64 4.1.2.1 &
4.1.22.3
29. Option A would improve travel time but retain
bottlenecks on Bent, Villiers and Fitzroy Streets.
98 4.1.2.1 & 4.1.2.4
30. DPI believes there is a need to have good
transport linkage from the subregion's towns and
villages to Grafton so people can access services
and jobs.
116 4.1.16.7
31. Option 11 provides for short-term relief of current
crossing and long-term growth including Junction
Hill and Clarenza.
11,52 4.1.2.1 & 4.1.6.1
32. Option 14 would be best thinking long term. 87 4.1.2.1
33. Options 14 and 15 would only improve life for
people using Summerland Way and bypassing
Grafton. Economic development for locals
travelling from South Grafton to Grafton would not
be improved.
7 4.1.2.1
34. Option E would not divert unnecessary traffic
around CBD
44,50,114 4.1.2.1
4.1.2 Traffic congestion - RMS response
Many submissions received by RMS indicated the additional crossing should relieve
congestion on the current bridge. Submissions supported the option or options the submitter
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 23
believed would achieve this. There were also suggestions that RMS should implement
demand management measures to delay the need for an additional crossing, and also to
deal with the existing and likely future congestion.
The six short-listed options were referred to in submissions as in town options, E, A and C,
and out of town options, 11, and 14 and 15, and this terminology has been adopted for the
purposes of this report. It is acknowledged there was some criticism of the out of town
options because they would be less effective at reducing congestion on the existing bridge.
However, Traffic modelling was undertaken to identify the extent to which the options would
address the congestion problem.
4.1.2.1 Analysis of options to relieve traffic congestion
The purpose of the project is to identify an additional crossing of the Clarence River to
address short-term and long-term transport needs. RMS recognises that there is lot of
community support for a bypass option. However, the origin and destination of traffic
crossing the river is an important consideration in the selection of the recommended
preferred location for the additional crossing.
Most concerns that have been raised about congestion have related to peak hour
congestion on the existing bridge and approaches. Some submissions also identified
specific events or design features which cause congestion, such as school times, the design
of the current bridge including the kinks, and the merge lanes on either side. Other concerns
were raised regarding the impact of congestion around the Grafton Hospital.
Congestion is related to a variety of factors, including school traffic, trips associated with
work start and finish times, and the configuration of the current bridge. All of these factors
have been taken into account in the traffic modelling and design of the six short-listed
options.
The analysis undertaken on traffic using the bridge shows that 97% of the traffic has an
origin (start) or destination (finish) point in Grafton or South Grafton. This highlights that the
majority of trips are local in nature.
The results of the traffic modelling, as presented Chapter 6.1 of the RODR show that at the
time of the assumed year of opening (2019), all six route options would perform similarly,
and result in substantial network improvements. However, as traffic demands increase in the
later years (2039 and 2049), the options that are in close proximity to the existing bridge
(Options E, A and C) perform better than those further downstream (Options 11, 14 and 15),
in terms of average speed, travel times and total distance travelled.
The results also indicate:
The “do minimum‟ results show that if the assumptions of growth are realised by
2029 the demands across the river would significantly reduce the performance of the
network, potentially causing grid lock during the peak periods.
All options with a new bridge in close proximity to the existing bridge (ie Options E, A
and C) attract much more traffic away from the existing bridge when compared to
those downstream (Options 11, 14 and 15).
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 24
The network performance in Options 14 and 15 deteriorates in future years with
average speeds in the AM peak up to 40 per cent less than the other options by
2049. This is a result of the majority of motorists still wanting to use the existing
bridge with those options.
From 2029 and beyond, point-to-point travel times indicate that Options E and C
provide the shortest travel times between South Grafton and Grafton; and that
Options 14 and 15 provide the shortest travel times between Butterfactory Lane and
the Pacific Highway to the south via the new bridge.
In 2049 Options E and C provide the best overall travel speeds in the AM and PM
peaks. Options A and 11 perform well in the AM peak but average travel speeds drop
off in later years during the PM peak, particularly for Option A.
In summary, the modelling presented in this report indicates that each of the options provide
improved operation of the network, with the options close to the existing bridge (Options E, A
and C) performing better than the options further downstream.
The microsimulation model also provides the likely distribution of cross-river traffic between
the existing bridge and the additional crossing. The modelling shows that, during peak
periods, a relatively high proportion of traffic (around 70 per cent) would use the new bridge
with Options E, A and C. This proportion is relatively constant over time.
However, for the route options that are further downstream (Options 11, 14 and 15) a much
lower proportion of traffic would use the new bridge. The proportion varies from 20 to 30 per
cent in 2019 to 35 to 45 per cent in 2049. The reasons for lower utilisation of the new bridge
with the downstream options is most likely a function of the trip origins and destinations with
fewer motorists choosing to use the new bridge because of the longer travel distances. In
later years, as congestion and delays on the existing bridge increase with the downstream
options, more motorists then choose to use the new bridge.
4.1.2.2 Demand management
RMS will continue to consider demand management strategies while identifying a preferred
option for an additional crossing as soon as possible. Demand management strategies
currently in place include restrictions on heavy vehicles during peak times on the bridge and
restricting turning movements on local streets close to either end of the bridge during peak
times.
Further strategies would be investigated over time to manage demand around and over the
existing bridge prior to completion of an additional crossing.
4.1.2.3 Hospital environs
All options include the upgrading of the Villiers Street and Dobie Street roundabout to
improve turning movements for heavy vehicles. This upgrade would encourage heavy
vehicles to use Dobie Street rather than Arthur Street, where the Grafton Hospital is located,
to get to and from Villiers Street.
4.1.2.4 Design of the existing bridge and approaches
All options would relieve congestion by moving traffic away from the existing bridge and onto
the new bridge, hence decreasing conflicts associated with the “kinks” on the existing bridge.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 25
Articulated heavy vehicles which currently have problems negotiating the “kinks” on the
existing bridge would be required to use the new bridge. This would occur through further
restrictions on the existing bridge. By reducing the number of vehicles on the existing bridge
and placing restrictions on articulated heavy vehicles, capacity on the existing bridge would
increase, and congestion would reduce.
As there would be no “kinks” on the new bridge, providing two more traffic lanes across the
river would more than double the capacity of the existing crossing. Detailed traffic modelling
shows that one additional lane in each direction would cater for predicted traffic volumes
through to 2049. Local intersection improvements would also be made to the existing local
road network, which would alleviate most of the congestion associated with merging traffic.
The road upgrades included for each option are designed for traffic growth through to 2049.
With the proposed upgrades in place, travel times in 2049 for Options E, A, C and 11
(between Bent Street/Gwydir Highway intersection South Grafton and Prince Street/Pound
Street intersection Grafton) are predicted to be better than or similar to the existing travel
times in 2012. These upgrades include improvements to various intersections within Grafton
and South Grafton, such as the Fitzroy and Villiers Street intersection. Under both Options E
and A the intersection of Villiers and Fitzroy Streets would be upgraded to provide increased
capacity, turning movements and include traffic signals. Traffic modelling undertaken as part
of the RODR indicates these upgrades are adequate to cater for traffic volumes to the year
2049.
In summary, as the existing bridge is currently congested during peak times, any additional
crossing would benefit movements in and around Grafton and South Grafton.
4.1.3 Heavy vehicles and freight networks – submissions
Issue raised in submission Submission
number
Section
Addressed
Heavy vehicles and freight networks
1. Option E allows earlier diversion to Gwydir and
gives two options for southbound travellers.
1,80,82 4.1.4.1
2. Options 14 and 15 are supported as they would
remove heavy traffic from CBD.
3,9,10,14,15,16,19,2
3,24,25,28,30,39,42,
43,44,46,50,52,60,
65,66,76,77,90,94,
96,97,105,115
4.1.4.1
3. Option11 would take traffic, heavy vehicles and
buses out of CBD, provides an alternate crossing
and clears traffic through to Villiers Street.
44,52,78,62,63,66,77
,78,112
4.1.2.1 & 4.1.4.1
4. Option 15 would service heavy vehicles travelling
to Casino, Lismore and other centres off
Summerland Way.
14,23,24,39,
50, 90
4.1.4.1
5. Most semis coming to the CBD are there to
service Grafton and few use Summerland Way.
74 4.1.4.1
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 26
Issue raised in submission Submission
number
Section
Addressed
Heavy vehicles and freight networks
6. Move the B-double route as well directing as
many timber jinkers, semi-trailers and coaches as
possible, to the new bridge on the outskirts of
Grafton.
P2, 29 4.1.4.1 & 4.1.4.2
7. Options 11 and 14 divert unnecessary traffic
including B-doubles through residential areas.
93 4.1.2.1 & 4.1.4.1
8. Option C is not as convenient to the outskirts of
Grafton for larger vehicles.
112 4.1.2.1 & 4.1.4.1
9. Option 14 would allow access to the North St
industrial centre without going through the CBD.
86 4.1.4.1
10. It would be desirable if traffic, particularly heavy
vehicle traffic, can efficiently move between the
Pacific Highway and Summerland Way in both
directions without excessive impact.
116 4.1.4.1 & 4.1.4.2
11. Option A requires west bound B-doubles to round
the Villiers Street Fitzroy Street roundabout in the
right lane in order to merge onto the new bridge.
This is not great traffic dynamics.
89 4.1.2.4
12. Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DPI)
sees Summerland Way as being a strategic intra-
and inter-state transport corridor which is likely to
grow in importance in the future.
116 4.1.4.2 & 4.1.18
13. Traffic should be able to move efficiently between
the Pacific Highway and Summerland Way in
both directions without too much impact on
Grafton.
116 4.1.4.1 & 4.1.18
14. Plans for the freight network from QLD to Coffs
Harbour, including the Pacific Intermodal and
Logistics and Summerdowns Rail Terminal,
contemplate an upgrade of Summerland Way and
a second bridge at Grafton.
P2 4.1.18
15. DPI believes it would be desirable if traffic,
particularly heavy vehicle traffic, can efficiently
move between the Pacific Highway and
Summerland Way.
116, P2 4.1.4.1 & 4.1.18
16. A bridge crossing which provides an efficient, low-
impact, route through/beside Grafton for heavy
vehicles (and other through-traffic) would be
desirable.
116 4.1.4.1
17. Options 14 and 15 move heavy vehicles out of
town to an extent but seem economically
unviable.
56 4.1.4.1 & 4.3.2
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 27
4.1.4 Heavy vehicles and freight networks - RMS response
The management of heavy vehicles through Grafton and South Grafton was raised
consistently in submissions relating to traffic and transport matters. Many submissions
argued that the out of town options, and in particularly Options 14 and 15, would remove the
heavy vehicles from town. Option E was also suggested as a way to enable an earlier
diversion for trucks using the Gwydir Highway.
4.1.4.1 Movement of Heavy Vehicles
In relation to the movement of heavy vehicles, vehicle surveys found that only 5% of traffic
using the existing bridge is classified as heavy vehicles, which also includes rigid vehicles
(including buses) and articulated vehicles (semi-trailers and B-doubles). Of this, 88% of
trucks using the existing bridge are coming from or going to Grafton or South Grafton. Both
Grafton and South Grafton contain shops and businesses that generate freight traffic
through delivery of goods and services.
Trips made by heavy vehicles into these areas are also associated with activities such as,
road maintenance, or construction activities. A relatively small proportion of heavy vehicles
using the bridge is through traffic (12% of heavy vehicle numbers). This includes vehicles
travelling from areas north of Grafton, such as Summerland Way, to areas south of Grafton
(including the Pacific Highway and the Gwydir Highway).
Based on the origin and destination surveys, and supported by the traffic modelling results,
Option 14 and 15 would not remove significant volumes of heavy traffic from the CBD. This
is because the majority of the heavy vehicle traffic needs to access areas within Grafton and
South Grafton.
With regard to Option E and the Gwydir Highway, surveys and traffic predictions showed that
the majority of heavy vehicles crossing the existing bridge have an origin or destination on
the east side of Bent Street in South Grafton (eg Pacific Highway and Armidale Road) rather
than on the west side of Bent Street (eg Gwydir Highway).
4.1.4.2 Freight route
It is not the intention of the new crossing to provide an additional freight corridor through
Grafton and South Grafton, or to change the role and function of local roads such as
Centenary Drive to carry heavy vehicles. Further, the project is not seeking to attract more
heavy vehicles onto Summerland Way. The role of Summerland Way is discussed in section
4.1.6 below relating to the Pacific Highway upgrade.
The new bridge would be designated for use by freight vehicles accessing Grafton or
Summerland Way. B-doubles and semi-trailers currently using the existing bridge would be
required to move to the new route. Buses would still be able to use the existing bridge.
Arrangements for heavy vehicles would be further considered during the refinement of the
concept design and environmental assessment for the preferred route.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 28
4.1.5 Connectivity - submissions
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section
Addressed
Connectivity
1. Option E is preferred for access between North
and South Grafton and links the south side at
CBD level.
21,34,36,67,72,80,82 4.1.6.1
2. Options 14 and 15 would be a longer but
convenient route with a direct connection to
Prince Street - people would adapt to the fastest
route.
28,43,60,115 4.1.6.1 &
4.1.16.1
3. Options 14 and 15 allow traffic to enter Grafton
from all directions.
115 4.1.6.1 &
4.1.6.2
4. Options A, E and E convenient for South Hill
residents
38 4.1.6.1
5. Options 14 and 15 convenient for Lower River
travellers.
38, 39,43,96,98 4.1.6.1 &
4.1.6.2
6. Options 11, 14 and 15 provide access for
Westlawn, Junction Hill and Clarenza and North
Grafton.
52,111 4.1.6.1 &
4.1.6.2
7. Option C links more effectively to the Pacific
Highway in two places.
70 4.1.6.1
8. Option 14 would connect Grafton and Yamba
more effectively
86,105 4.1.6.1
9. Option 15 would link South Grafton and Trenayr. 50,98 4.1.6.1
10. The new bridge should serve the town and its
residents and link North and South Grafton with a
bridge beside the existing one.
P1,113 4.1.6.1
11. The existing bridge should accommodate mostly
local traffic and a new bridge should be located
downstream.
100 4.1.6.1 &
4.1.2.1
12. An in town option would create connectivity
issues with closure of local roads.
115 4.1.6.1 &
4.1.6.2
13. In town options would divide the town by
increasing traffic on Summerland Way.
P2 4.1.6.1, 4.1.2.1
& 4.1.4.2
14. Option A permits large vehicles with wider tracks
to traverse the bridge and would enable the
existing bridge to be upgraded to two lanes in the
same direction.
22 4.1.22.3
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 29
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section
Addressed
Connectivity
15. Option A enables upgrading to two lanes in the
same direction.
23 4.1.22.3
16. Request that RMS provides a continuous shared
path for the entire route option.
90
4.1.6.3
17. Opportunities exist to incorporate cycling facilities
into the design of the bridge.
88,89,90 4.1.6.3
18. Option 15 would be of use to industries in
Junction Hill and future residents of Junction Hill
to access Yamba, Wooli or Minnie Water.
14,28,93 4.1.6.2
19. Options 14 and 15 include two two-way routes for
access allowing future growth.
39 4.1.6.1 &
4.1.6.2
20. Options E, A and C do not address the
implications of the projected growth of Junction
Hill and Clarenza.
52 4.1.6.2
21. Option E would tie in with Council’s Precinct Plan. 82 4.1.6.1
4.1.6 Connectivity – RMS response
4.1.6.1 Connectivity between Grafton and South Grafton
One of the main objectives of the project is to improve traffic efficiency between and within
Grafton and South Grafton, as well as ensuring the short and long-term transport needs of
the community are addressed. This relates both to connectivity across the Clarence River
and between the urban areas on either side.
All options would provide some improvement in the level of connectivity between Grafton
and South Grafton. All options would increase connectivity across the Clarence River, with
the in town options having a greater connection to the urban area of South Grafton and
Options C, 11, 14 and 15 providing a link to the growth area of Clarenza. An additional
crossing would also result in reduced congestion across the overall road network. The level
of connectivity of each of the route options with existing and future residential areas, existing
and future employment areas and the two CBDs is discussed in the RODR under section
6.4.1.
As noted in the RODR section 6.4.1, Option E provides a relatively more direct link between
the two CBDs than the other options and would provide the strongest improvement to
connectivity to this area. However the overall assessment of the options needed to consider
access and connectivity to all areas including existing and future residential, employment,
commercial and industrial areas.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 30
4.1.6.2 Connectivity to growth areas
Options 14 and 15 provide improved connectivity between the two separate growth and
employment areas of Junction Hill and Clarenza. However, they have only a low potential to
improve connectivity between the Grafton and South Grafton CBDs compared with the in
town options. All options perform similarly with regard to connecting existing and future
residential areas with existing and future employment areas. All options would provide a
connection to the growth area of Junction Hill either through the existing local street network,
or via Turf Street / Summerland Way.
Further to this, all options include some restrictions to movements from the local roads onto
the main connecting roads into Grafton and South Grafton, such as left-in left-out restrictions
and cul-de-sacs. Where turning restrictions are required, alternative routes are available
even though travel distances may increase in some cases. Connectivity across the town
however would still be maintained.
4.1.6.3 Cycle path connectivity
All options incorporate a shared path 3.1m wide for pedestrians and cyclists on the new
bridge and 2.5m alongside the main approach roads. The in town options would provide
greater opportunities for pedestrian and cycle connectivity to the urban areas of South
Grafton, with Option E providing the best connection to the South Grafton CBD.
The connection opportunities for pedestrian and cycle networks for each of the options is
discussed in the RODR (page 141). Pedestrian and cycle paths on the local road network
surrounding the new bridge would be discussed with Clarence Valley Council during the
concept design phase.
While one option may benefit one specific area of the community, the project considers the
entire Grafton and surrounds, and has to balance the benefits overall.
4.1.7 Emergency vehicles - submissions
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section
Addressed
Emergency vehicles
1. Options 14 and 15 would not improve emergency
vehicle access between North and South Grafton.
31 4.1.8
2. Any option other than A would improve
emergency access. A second crossing with
alternate approaches would allow emergency
vehicles two options for access. Option A uses
the same approach roads for both bridges.
71 4.1.8
3. A second crossing with alternate approaches to
allow two options for emergency vehicles is
required.
71 4.1.8
4. Crossings should be located strategically to
improve response times for emergency vehicles.
This is best resolved by option 15.
93 4.1.8
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 31
4.1.8 Emergency vehicles – RMS response
The existing bridge is currently congested during peak times. Any additional crossing would
benefit emergency vehicle access between Grafton and South Grafton.
In addition to this the following information has been provided on the project website
following discussions with the emergency services:
Discussions with Fire and Rescue NSW indicate an overall preference for Option A or C as
being the options most likely to reduce response times when fire trucks need to cross the
Clarence River, with an overall preference for Option C.
Discussions with the Ambulance Service of New South Wales indicated that congestion on
the existing bridge was rarely a critical problem for them and that because of wide variability
in the locations of the ambulance and the incident it was not possible overall to identify a
bridge option that would be better or worse for response times. As such they had no
preference for one option over another.
4.1.9 Public Transport – Submissions
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section
Addressed
Public transport
1. This project is a tremendous opportunity to
positively impact on the region’s public transport
network.
Conversely some options could render significant
harm to public transport if chosen.
73 4.1.10
2. Option A and E would remove the most traffic
from the existing bridge and are preferred by the
local bus company, Busways.
73 4.1.10
3. A fundamentally important outcome is linking
Grafton and South Grafton by the shortest
possible connection.
73 4.1.6.1
4. Option A would decrease congestion and
maintain the coverage of and access to bus
services and improve viability of public transport.
73 4.1.10 &
4.1.2.1
5. Option E would remove services from Through
Street and the northern end of Skinner Street.,
affect bus transport for Clarence Valley Anglican
Primary School and create safety issues and
make crossing the Gwydir Highway difficult for
buses.
73 4.1.10
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 32
4.1.10 Public Transport – RMS response
RMS is working with various stakeholders across the community, including public transport
operators, to ensure the preferred location for an additional crossing takes into account all
transport modes, including public transport.
Regardless of which option is chosen as the preferred option, there would be further
discussions with Council and local bus companies to optimise the coverage and efficiency of
bus routes once the new bridge is opened.
4.1.11 Safety – Submissions
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section
Addressed
Safety
1. Option 15 is preferred as it would avoid heavily
populated areas and would take heavy trucks
(especially B-doubles) away from residential
areas.
3,13,18,52 4.1.4.1
2. Options A, C, E and 11 would cut through densely
populated areas and endanger human lives.
3 4.1.2.1 &
4.1.12
3. Options 14 and 15 have high safety risks for the
existing bridge.
7 4.1.12
4. Option 11 increases potential danger in a
residential area with sporting fields.
8,43 4.1.12
5. Options 11, 14 and 15 are safer regarding heavy
vehicles traversing residential areas.
52 4.1.4.1 &
4.1.12
6. Options E, A and C have heightened risk and
safety issues regarding heavy vehicles
manoeuvring through residential areas.
52 4.1.4.1 &
4.1.12
7. Option E would remove access to a fire panel
associated with the Sisters of Mercy Convent and
deny access to the Convent building for the fire
brigade via Villiers Street.
59,109 4.1.14.2
8. Concern about the existing structural integrity of
the bridge and ability to withstand construction
impacts.
71,103 4.1.22.11
9. Option A would create dangerous access and
pedestrian environment for residents from
reversing movements from driveways.
71 4.1.12
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 33
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section
Addressed
Safety
10. Evacuation during times of flooding would be
restricted by options A, C and E.
71 4.2.16.3
11. Option E would involve large vehicles at the end
of Cowan Street and create safety problems for
children.
77 4.1.12
12. Option 11 would make the streets safer for
pedestrians with less large vehicle traffic flow.
112 4.1.12 &
4.1.4.1
13. All in town options have the highest impact on
pedestrian and road safety.
P2 4.1.12
14. Options C, 11, 14 and 15 would cause more
accident black-spots and traffic congestion
including for those wishing to bypass Grafton until
the Pacific Highway is upgraded.
45 4.1.12 &
4.1.2.1
15. Any out of town option would minimise and
prevent impacts by improving safety for all –
residents and tourists.
115 4.1.12 and
4.1.2.1
16. Option E involves increased traffic risks to
children in the Victoria and Villiers area.
118 4.1.12
4.1.12 Safety – RMS Response
An additional crossing would improve road safety regardless of the location by decreasing
the current conflicts on the existing bridge, particularly relating to heavy vehicles and the
“kinks”. Long, heavy vehicles cannot negotiate the kinks without crossing the centrelines.
With articulated heavy vehicles required to use the new bridge, this conflict would be
significantly reduced.
The road safety audit undertaken for the RODR identifies potential safety issues for all
options, including safety issues relating to pedestrians and cyclists. The audit identified that
Option A has the highest number of inherent safety issues, followed by Option E. Options C,
11, 14 and 15 have fewer inherent safety issues. However, Options 14 and 15 would result
in increased travel demand on the existing bridge in the longer term, leading to more
conflicts associated with the kinks on the existing bridge.
Specific to Options E, A and C, the Road Safety Audit identified potential safety issues
around the continued exposure of vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists,
to heavy vehicles and through traffic. All options, including those out of town, introduce
design elements which would increase potential for conflict between pedestrians and cyclists
and motorised vehicles.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 34
Any identified preferred location would undergo a concept design and environmental
assessment phase. During this phase RMS would investigate measures to mitigate any
identified safety concerns associated with the location and design of the bridge. This would
include including ensuring safety for pedestrian and cyclists and providing appropriate
access to adjacent properties on local roads. Upon construction commencing, RMS and its
contractors would implement relevant traffic management measures to address any potential
safety concerns that may arise during construction.
4.1.13 Local road impacts - submissions
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section
Addressed
Local road impacts
1. Option E would disrupt access and remove all
parking options for Villiers Street. This would force
more parking into Victoria Street which is already
near capacity.
59, 98, 109 4.1.14.2
2. The loss of curtilage adjacent to the western façade
of St Mary’s Convent associated with Option E
presents substantial access issues.
109
4.1.14.2
3. Access to the riverbank property for mowing and
other maintenance is currently via Villiers Street
and would be removed under Option E.
59 4.1.14.2
4. Option C would directly affect access from houses
in Clarence Street because of traffic queuing at
lights.
82 4.1.14.2
5. Option C would have a huge [negative] impact on
entry into the TAFE College.
98 4.1.14.2
6. Option A could close part of Kent Street affecting
access to the Dovedale area and the Sailing Club.
71 4.1.14.2
7. Steep grade issues on approach roads would
prevent access to the second bridge to Villiers
Street.
P2 4.1.14.2,
4.1.14.3
8. Any out of town option would alleviate congestion
and capacity issues impacting on parking, access,
pedestrians, and businesses.
115 4.1.2.1,
4.1.14.3 &
4.2.12
9. All in town options have the highest impact on
essential car parking.
115 4.1.14.2
10. A four lane road with access to the TAFE for Option
C would have significant road safety issues and
limit access into and out of Clarence Street.
115 4.1.14.2 &
4.1.12
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 35
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section
Addressed
Local road impacts
11. Option A does not fragment existing settlement
patterns.
22 4.1.14.1
4.1.14 Local road impacts – RMS response
4.1.14.1 Road widening
Designs for all options were developed to provide road widening necessary for local road
upgrades to allow increased turning movements at specific intersections. The road widening
and upgrades included for each option allow for traffic growth to 2049. The in town options
would impact more on on-street parking than Options 11, 14 and 15. Opportunities to
mitigate the impact of these options on parking would be considered further in the design
development phase of the preferred option.
Option A was seen by some as having the least impact on the existing Grafton and South
Grafton streetscape.
For Option A the approach road in South Grafton is mostly aligned with the street grid.
However, the viaduct in Grafton would not be aligned with the street grid. This elevated
approach road would affect the urban pattern between Craig Street and Fitzroy Street.
There would also be road upgrades associated with Option A which would affect the existing
streetscape, including:
impacts on existing street trees on both sides of the river;
a substantial widening of Fitzroy Street effectively splitting traffic across the existing
bridge and the adjacent new bridge; and
intersection treatments that include removing roundabouts and replacing these with
traffic lights.
4.1.14.2 Access and parking
In upgrading local roads as a result of an additional crossing, access arrangements to
properties and on-street parking may be affected.
Issues were also raised about Options E, A and C regarding grade issues preventing access
to connecting local roads.
In relation to the specific concern regarding the potential changes to Kent Street, access to
the Dovedale area and the Sailing Club. The design intent for Option A is that the roadway
connection between Kent St and Fitzroy St would remain open to traffic.
Any identified preferred option would undergo a concept design and environmental
assessment phase. Aspects such as access and parking would be assessed
comprehensively during that phase. The aim of the concept design phase is to, amongst
other things, minimise the impact on adjacent properties, minimise the loss of on-street
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 36
parking due to future road upgrades, and ensure access to existing properties can be
accommodated, including for maintenance and fire safety reasons, while ensuring the safety
of all road users.
4.1.14.3 Villiers Street
In relation to Villiers Street, all options would require the lowering of Villiers Street to enable
heavy vehicles to service the Grafton central business district. This was an omission in the
September Community Update, however was included in the RODR, under sections 4.6.2,
4.7.2, 4.8.2, 4.9.2, and 4.10.2– Road Network Upgrades.
The current design for Option E proposes that the Bridge approach on the northern side of
the Clarence River be at ground level by the intersection with Villiers and Victoria Streets.
For Options A and C, the approach roads would be at ground level at the intersections with
Clarence Street and Pound Street respectively. As such, with the exception of the southern
end of Villiers Street, access to adjacent properties, would not be an issue. For the
properties at the southern end of Villiers Street with Option E, access would be obtained via
Victoria Street.
Any identified preferred option would undergo a concept design and environmental
assessment phase. Aspects such as access and parking would be assessed
comprehensively during that phase.
4.1.14.4 Impacts on Streetscape
All options would have some effect on the Grafton and South Grafton streetscape. For
Option A the approach road in South Grafton is mostly aligned with the street grid. However,
the viaduct in Grafton would not be aligned with the street grid. This elevated approach road
would affect the urban pattern between Craig Street and Fitzroy Street. There would also be
road upgrades associated with Option A which would affect the existing streetscape,
including:
impacts on existing street trees on both side of the river;
a substantial widening of Fitzroy Street effectively splitting traffic across the existing
bridge and the adjacent new bridge; and
intersection treatments that include removing roundabouts and replacing these with
traffic lights.
The impact of a new crossing on streetscape would be further evaluated during the concept
design phase.
4.1.15 Traffic study and demographics – submissions
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section Addressed
Traffic Study and Demographics
1. Option A is the only option with a 3 lane configuration and all vehicles travelling in one direction so it cannot be compared with other options.
71 4.1.16.1
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 37
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section Addressed
Traffic Study and Demographics
2. Concerned about the lack of traffic counters near schools at Clarenza
71 4.1.16.3
3. Traffic report assumes vehicles travelling between Junction Hill and South Grafton and Clarenza would not use Options 14 and 15. Lack of delays in school holidays contradicts this.
71 4.1.16.4
4. RMS could regulate to require that heavy vehicles and buses use the new bridge in a downstream location.
71 4.1.2.4
5. Traffic counts are of concern because:
a. they were undertaken on a pension day and traffic is greater on those days;
b. they were not done also on a Friday evening to reflect that peak; and
c. some counters were broken.
71,93,115 4.1.16.5
6. Traffic counts show a number of heavy vehicles that use the bridge do not travel to the CBD.
71 4.1.4.1
7. Rate of population growth underpinning the traffic growth models are inconsistent with and greater than the Infrastructure NSW estimates.
84 4.1.16.7
8. Query about the annualising factor for traffic peaks relied on in the economic evaluation and the potential exaggeration of benefits.
84 4.1.16.8
9. 2011 traffic study report indicates that over 40% of traffic is not destined for the CBD.
P2 4.1.16.6
10. Accuracy of 2011 traffic study is doubted and comparisons with 2009 study questionable.
P2,115 4.1.16.6
11. Summerland Way is predicted to experience increased traffic from Grafton to Casino and Kyogle due to population and industry growth.
P2 4.1.18
12. Plans for the freight network from Qld to Coffs Harbour contemplate an upgrade of Summerland Way and a second bridge at Grafton.
P2 4.1.18
13. Within 30 years forecast is for 1,600 trucks per day on Villiers Street (currently 2,250 trucks on Pacific Hwy) 50,000 vehicles entering Grafton (5 times current Pacific Hwy traffic at South Grafton). This suggests that any out of town option would minimise impacts.
115 4.1.2.1 & 4.1.4.1
14. The RMS travel times only consider travel between and within Grafton and South Grafton. Figures are distorted and influenced by this focus.
115 4.1.16.5, 4.1.16.6, & 4.1.16.7
15. Current and future truck and traffic counts for the road network in and around Grafton especially Villiers Street and Summerland Way through Grafton appear not to have been fully addressed and considered, particularly given that truck company’s depots are mostly in town
115 4.1.16.3 & 4.1.16.5
16. The Mid North Coast Regional Strategy (2009) identifies Grafton as a "major regional centre" in the hierarchy of the region's settlement.
116 4.1.16.7
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 38
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section Addressed
Traffic Study and Demographics
17. Grafton’s main role is to serve the Clarence Valley subregion with major services such as jobs, retailing, medical, sport and cultural facilities.
116 4.1.16.7
18. The RMS report (e.g. section 6.4.1 of the Main Report) tends to focus on linkages between Grafton and South Grafton, with much less emphasis in Grafton's wider role in the subregion.
116 4.1.16.5, 4.1.16.6 & 4.1.16.7
19. The current and planned future growth of employment land north of Junction Hill is likely to add to this need.
116, P2 4.1.16.4 & 4.1.16.7
20. The main population centres in Grafton's functional catchment are Maclean (including the growing community of Gulmarrad) and Yamba.
116, P2 4.1.16.7
21. Yamba and its population is not recognised the RODR.
116, P2 4.1.16.7
22. The RMS is only looking at the local picture and assumed traffic movements for the next 30 years. The impacts of major local population growth areas are not being fully considered into the future.
115 4.1.16.1, 4.1.16.5 & 4.1.16.7
23. The current and planned future growth of employment land north of Junction Hill is likely to add to current transport needs.
116 4.1.16.4 & 4.1.16.7
24. A second bridge is required to support regional growth.
118 4.1.16.9
4.1.16 Traffic Study – RMS response
4.1.16.1 Traffic model
The traffic model accounted for driver behaviour. The microsimulation traffic model that was
used models the likely impact of changes in traffic patterns resulting from changes to traffic
flow (demand) and/or changes to the physical environment (road network). While some
drivers may choose to access either side of the river utilising an out of town bridge location,
travel times associated with using these options tend to be longer. With Option 14 or 15 for
example, traffic would need to travel back into town to access goods and services within the
two CBD areas of Grafton and South Grafton after crossing the river. This is a less desirable
outcome in terms of increasing travel time and vehicle kilometres, in addition to not
addressing congestion in town.
The traffic analysis undertaken on traffic utilising the bridge shows that 97% of the traffic has
an origin (start) or destination (finish) point in Grafton or South Grafton.
4.1.16.2 Comparing Option A with other options
Option A has a different lane configuration than other options. However, the number of
vehicles travelling on the new bridge is not an assessment criterion. The assessment criteria
are set out in the RODR. The assessment is based on how effectively an option achieves
the goals of the project.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 39
When looking at performance over the entire network, Option A is predicted to perform better
than the out of town options in terms of reducing traffic congestion and reducing traffic
delays.
4.1.16.3 Traffic counters
In terms of the placement of traffic counters, traffic counts used in the modelling included
counts conducted at:
Centenary Drive north of Helens Drive - 2009
Centenary Drive - 2011
Pacific Highway south of Centenary Drive - 2010
Pacific Highway north of Centenary Drive - 2010
Pacific Highway/Duncan's Lane intersection - 2006
The number and location of traffic counts in the Clarenza area is considered appropriate
based on the current level of development.
With regard to some of the traffic counters not working, RMS acknowledges that some of the
tube counters were faulty during some of the tube count data collection period. These were
on four sites within the study area.
Only data recorded from outside of the times when the counters were either not recording, or
providing incorrect data was used for the traffic assessments. The impact of the exclusion of
such data from the reporting was considered and it was concluded that its exclusion would
not impact on the results. This is because they represent a small percentage of the entire
data set for all sites over the week.
4.1.16.4 Travel to and from Junction Hill and Clarenza
With regard to vehicles travelling between Junction Hill and Clarenza, the route choice in the
traffic model is not an assumed input. The traffic model calculates the best route between
Junction Hill and South Grafton or Clarenza. For example, based on travel time including the
effects of congestion and distance, the modelling showed that motorists travelling between
Junction Hill and Clarenza or Junction Hill and South Grafton would use the new bridge (in
the Corcoran park area) for Options 14 and 15.
In terms of where these suburbs lie in relation to Grafton, Junction Hill lies within 6km of the
Grafton post office, and Clarenza is within 3km of South Grafton, thus they are considered
part of the larger Grafton and South Grafton areas respectively. Further, access to goods
and services is primarily obtained through the Grafton / South Grafton CBDs due to the
proximity of these localities to the main activity centres. As a result, for transport modelling
purposes, Clarenza is considered as part of the South Grafton areas. Population growth in
the Junction Hill area was included as part of the traffic modelling for future years.
Further, Clarence Valley Council advised that two of the future growth areas were Junction
Hill and Clarenza. It was prudent to include these areas as, in the future, they will house a
large proportion of the Grafton population and should be considered in the Grafton context.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 40
4.1.16.5 Collection and interpretation of data
Traffic surveys are typically completed on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, as opposed
to a Monday or Friday which experience variations due to being so close to the weekend.
Thursdays are typically higher than the weekday average by 5 – 6%. However, the
advantage of this information is that it allows RMS to utilise traffic data for a day which may
place additional pressures on the overall system, thus exposing any potential problems in
the network. This is consistent with RMS using the 85th percentile of traffic figures when
recording and assessing the road network.
There has been a significant amount of traffic surveys and analysis undertaken since 2006
relating to the Grafton Bridge project. These include:
Surveys undertaken on Thursday 15 and Friday 16 November 2007 between 7am –
10am and 4pm – 7pm investigating turning movements and origin and destination
surveys.
Traffic data supplied by the Clarence Valley Council comprising of two-way daily
traffic volume counts at numerous sites across the study area. Counts were taken a
number of times between 2006 up to 2009
An Origin and Destination survey undertaken between 7am and 9am on Wednesday
11 March 2009 supported by automatic tube counts and turning movements counts
undertaken in March 2009 for the New crossing of the Clarence River at Grafton
Traffic Study Report (December 2009)
Origin and Destination surveys undertaken between 5am and 7pm on Thursday 19
August 2010 supported by automatic tube counts undertaken over a week for the
Heavy Vehicle Study in August 2010
Automatic tube count data at numerous sites around the study area for two weeks in
June / July 2011, as well as queue length surveys on southern side of the bridge in
the AM peak and the northern side of the bridge in the PM peak
Travel time surveys between the Gwydir Highway and Villiers Street in 2011 and
2012.
4.1.16.6 Comparing traffic survey results
The table below provides a summary of 2009 and 2010 survey findings:
Trip description
March 2009* August 2010**
VPD*** % VPD %
External to External (through trips) 533 2% 728 3%
External to Grafton / South Grafton 12,219 53% 10,360 39%
Internal - Grafton to/from South Grafton 10,462 45% 15,466 58%
TOTAL 23,214 26,554
* Representation of a origin-destination survey undertaken 7 to 9am on Wednesday 11 March 2009
** Actual counts based on Origin Destination Surveys undertaken 5am to 7pm on Thursday 19 August 2010
***Vehicles per day (VPD)
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 41
The 2009 survey identified a higher proportion of external to internal Grafton / South Grafton
trips than the 2010 survey (53% vs 39% respectively). Correspondingly there were fewer
internal to internal trips in 2009 than in 2010 (45% vs 58%).
The following factors need to be taken into account in any comparison between the two
surveys.
The 2009 survey counted trips between 7am and 9am whereas the 2010 survey
counted trips between 5am and 7pm. Consequently, the 2010 survey was over a
greater period of time than the 2009 survey and took into account off-peak travel.
The 2009 survey did not include Junction Hill, Clarenza and South Grafton south of
Vere Street within the internal trips category, whereas the 2010 survey did include
these areas. Consequently, trips from Junction Hill, Clarenza and South Grafton
south of Vere Street to Grafton / South Grafton were included in the external to
internal counts for the 2009 survey whereas they were included in the internal to
internal counts for the 2010 survey.
Both surveys found similar proportions of through (external to external) traffic 2% in
2009, and 3% in 2010). Consequently, both surveys highlight the overwhelming
contribution of the Grafton / South Grafton areas to the traffic crossing the existing
bridge.
The extent of information ensured that the project team used a wide variety of data sources
to ensure that no single figure would distort the overall traffic picture that is created from the
various data sources. What has been found to date is that the data findings are all generally
consistent in terms of origins and destinations and the nature of the journeys.
4.1.16.7 Population growth forecasts
The population growth forecast used for the RODR (p14) was based on information provided
by Clarence Valley Council and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. This
information indicates that population growth is expected to occur at an average rate of 1.6%
per annum between 2011 and 2049.
Various documents were considered in the context for an additional crossing of the Clarence
River in Grafton, including:
Mid North Coast Regional Strategy (2009)
Far North Coast Regional Strategy (2009)
Northern Rivers Regional Plan 2011
South Grafton Heights Precinct - A Strategy for the Future
These documents assisted in understanding the growth of the Grafton area, how Grafton fits
into the wider role in the subregion, and also Grafton’s role in serving the Clarence Valley
subregion with jobs, retailing, medical, sport and cultural facilities, consistent with the stated
project objective to “support regional and local economic development”.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 42
With regard to submissions raising Maclean and Yamba as part of Grafton’s functional
catchment, while the employment catchment for Grafton extends to Maclean and Yamba,
there is also a southern catchment for the town. Of the 97% of traffic that has an origin or
destination point in Grafton or South Grafton, 39% of traffic is coming from/going to
destinations external to Grafton or South Grafton. Traffic from Yamba and Maclean is
included in this figure as well as traffic coming from a range of other destinations within the
northern and southern catchment areas.
An allowance for population growth outside of the Grafton area was made as part of the
traffic modelling. The RODR also assumes that the upgrade of the Pacific Highway to
bypass Grafton would be complete by 2019.
4.1.16.8 Annualisation
The traffic modelling for the additional crossing of the Clarence River includes a forecast of
the average weekday traffic flows. Economic analysis requires annualisation of daily traffic
flows.
An annualisation factor is traditionally determined by using permanent traffic count data
which record traffic for each day of the year.
RMS’ consultant, Arup adopted two approaches for determining the annualisation factor
based on recorded traffic count data and benchmarked the outcome against factors from
other investigations.
The first approach was based on data recorded by a permanent traffic counter on Fitzroy
Street. Data was available for 2009. Using the permanent traffic count data for 2009 and
summing every recorded day and calculating an average weekday traffic volume a factor of
333 was determined.
Arup and its sub-consultant GTA also undertook traffic counts at different times throughout
the study. These counts were over a number of weeks during typical periods of the
year. The second approach was based on traffic count data recorded at the existing Grafton
Bridge in 2010. Using this traffic count data, the ratio of weekly average to the weekday
average was 0.918. This figure was consistent with previous documentation of traffic flows
on the Grafton Bridge. Applying this factor across the entire year resulted in an
annualisation factor of 335.
As the two annualisation factors are similar (333 and 335), the 335 annualisation factor was
adopted. A review of annualisation factors elsewhere revealed that the factor of 335 was
consistent with other regions where factors up to 350 have been adopted.
4.1.16.9 Need for an additional crossing
The existing Grafton Bridge is currently experiencing congestion and delays associated with
morning and afternoon peak periods. Modelling for the predicted growth of Grafton and the
associated growth in traffic indicates that by 2029 the current bridge would be heavily
congested, with much of the local street network at gridlock.
In order to ensure future capacity on the network can be accommodated, planning for a new
bridge is required. Once a preferred location is identified, it can be preserved to enable the
crossing to be constructed when funds become available.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 43
4.1.17 Upgrade of the Pacific Highway – submissions
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section
Addressed
Upgrade of Pacific Highway
1. A bypass option would not be required after the
upgrade of the Pacific Highway.
1 4.1.18
2. Prefer options 11, 14 or 15 if Grafton is to be
bypassed.
20 4.1.2.1 &
4.1.18
3. Should invest in the Pacific Highway upgrade first
then understand the best option for Grafton after
that.
101 4.1.18
4. Some options predicated on the upgrade of the
Pacific Highway upgrade but it may not be
delivered.
76 4.1.18
5. Completion of the Pacific Highway upgrade would
reduce heavy vehicle traffic through Grafton but
funding is not guaranteed.
75,76,118 4.1.18
4.1.18 Upgrade of the Pacific Highway – RMS response
The Pacific Highway is an important component of the National Highway network and is
recognised as the main freight corridor linking Brisbane and Sydney along the east coast,
with access to the inland towns of Lismore and Casino via east-west connections.
For the purposes of the Additional Crossing of the Clarence River in Grafton, it is assumed
the Glenugie to Tyndale upgrade of the Pacific Highway (which bypasses South Grafton)
would be open to traffic by the assumed date of opening of the additional crossing, being
2019.
Both the State and Federal governments have identified a high priority for the upgrading of
the highway to dual carriageway. It is anticipated that the majority of freight traffic between
Brisbane to Sydney would continue to use the Pacific Highway.
Summerland Way is recognised as a strategic link between the Darling Downs, Kyogle,
Lismore, Casino and Grafton. Any future increases in traffic volumes on Summerland Way
are likely to be primarily influenced by the extent of development along the corridor. An
improved Pacific Highway is forecast to be more attractive north south route for freight traffic
between Brisbane and Sydney and servicing the North Coast.
In relation to South Grafton, the upgrade would realign the Pacific Highway, resulting in an
alignment located to the east of Tucabia and Pillar Valley. With this in place, the likelihood
of trucks utilising local streets such as Centenary Drive and Heber Street, as a short cut
back onto the Pacific Highway would be significantly reduced.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 44
4.1.19 Construction issues – submissions
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section
Addressed
Construction issues
1. Option A does not require extensive earthworks
and road lowering on the northern side.
22 4.1.14.1 &
4.1.20
2. Option A involves significant change to roads and
pedestrian crossings on the northern approaches
that would not be easy to construct.
71 4.1.20
3. Under Option A the road level at the junction of
Fitzroy/Kent Streets does not leave enough room
for vehicles to pass under the new bridge
approach in the current configuration.
71 4.1.20
4.1.20 Construction issues – RMS response
All options would involve changes to local roads and intersections throughout Grafton and
South Grafton. Further, all options have undergone adequate investigation to be confident
in the ability to construct the new crossing and supporting local street upgrades. Costs for
all options are based on strategic estimates with all options including allowances and
contingencies to cover aspects such as geotechnical issues, property acquisitions, raising of
the levee walls, and other matters that may arise during construction.
In relation to the specific concern regarding the potential changes to Kent Street, access to
the Dovedale area and the Sailing Club. The design intent for Option A is that the roadway
connection between Kent St and Fitzroy St would remain open to traffic. There is sufficient
vertical clearance under the new approach viaduct to allow this link to remain open.
The preferred option would undergo a concept design and environmental assessment
phase. Aspects such as constructability would be assessed comprehensively during that
phase.
4.1.21 Design – Submissions
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section Addressed
Design options and suggested modifications
1. Attach new bridge to the old to strengthen old bridge – refer to Auckland Bridge as an example.
2,29 62,67 4.1.22.4
2. Modify Option C to improve access between Armidale Road and Iolanthe Street.
6 4.1.22.7
3. Add traffic lights to each end of the existing bridge to manage emergencies until the new bridge is built
17 4.1.2.2
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 45
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section Addressed
Design options and suggested modifications
4. Upgrade Centenary Drive as the designated B-double route.
23 4.1.4.2
5. Have a load limit on the old bridge and stop all trucks and buses using it and avoid traffic delays.
21 4.1.2.4
6. Enhance option 11 by the development of flood free land at Clarenza.
56,104 4.1.6.2
7. Account for traffic from Bi-Lo on Ryan Street, which is the only practical exit for South Grafton Residents.
114 4.1.14.2
8. Use existing bridge for cars only and direct trucks to the new bridge on option 15.
55 4.1.2.4
9. Move Option 15 by moving it 800 m to 1km further north.
5 4.1.22.8
10. Build a transport hub on the outskirts of town to offload big trucks onto smaller ones
19 4.1.22.14
11. Consider a new route along Turf Street with a bridge over Susan Island. Redirect the railway over the new bridge to Orara Way.
41 4.1.22.4 & 4.1.22.15
12. Use Heber Street instead of Centenary Drive for B-double route and connect with the northern end of the highway.
41 4.1.4.2
13. Include a centre bridge pylon on Elizabeth Island for a two span bridge.
50 4.1.22.15
14. Follow the existing railway easement next to Villiers Street.
74 4.1.22.12
15. All motorised traffic to use the new bridge. Old bridge to be used by pedestrians and cyclists and other uses as a tourist attraction.
88 4.1.22.6
16. Move the existing water supply from the existing bridge and make the span operational for water craft.
100 4.1.22.13
17. Have all traffic on each bridge in one direction to avoid merging and congestion.
102 4.1.22.3
18. Build the bridge approach to join KFC and the Villiers Street roundabout.
114 4.1.22.5
19. Upgrade Ryan Street to 4 lanes from Bent Street towards Skinner Street.
114 4.1.22.1
20. The 5 way roundabout proposed for Ryan and Bent Streets supported and request to bring construction forward regardless of option chosen.
114 4.1.22.2
21. Prefer not to introduce any traffic lights. 12,76 4.1.22.5
22. If roundabouts are required do not landscape them. Keep visibility clear and paint them instead.
39 4.1.22.10
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 46
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section Addressed
Design options and suggested modifications
23. Villiers Street rail underpass has been lowered to its convenient and safe limit. Some options would require lowering roadways.
60 4.1.14.3 & 4.1.22.10
24. Option 15 would not require lowering the Villiers Street rail underpass.
76 4.1.14.3
25. Current bridge load limit was two engines. Now it accommodates trains up to 1500m long.
101 4.1.22.11
4.1.22 Design – RMS response
4.1.22.1 Road upgrades South Grafton
In relation to road upgrades in South Grafton associated with Options E and A, only Option E
requires the upgrading of Ryan Street to 4 lanes from the Bent Street roundabout through to
the proposed roundabout with Cowan Street. This upgrade would only be needed for Option
E to accommodate the predicted increase in traffic in Ryan Street. This change would not be
required under any of the other options.
4.1.22.2 Five-way roundabout
Option A is the only option which would require a 5 way roundabout to the current
roundabout configuration with Bent Street, Gwydir Highway and Ryan Street. Traffic
modelling identified that for this option a larger five-way roundabout with two circulating
lanes was required to achieve the necessary capacity with all bridge traffic using Bent Street.
Other options would require some upgrades to this roundabout. However, the traffic
modelling showed that a four-way roundabout with two circulating lanes would be adequate
for all other options.
4.1.22.3 Traffic lanes old and new bridge
The existing bridge is narrow and this narrow width combined with the kinks means that it
could not operate safely with two lanes of traffic in the same direction. There would be an
unacceptable risk of heavy vehicles side-swiping a vehicle in the adjacent lane when
negotiating the kinks.
With Option A, conflicts at the merges and diverges on each side of the river meant that the
new and existing bridges could not operate with one lane in each direction, and the narrow
lanes and kinks meant that the existing bridge could not operate safely with two lanes of
traffic operating in the same direction. Therefore, for Option A to be viable, it was necessary
to provide 3 lanes on the new bridge and to convert the existing bridge to one lane
southbound.
4.1.22.4 Modification to existing bridge or rail alignment
The Grafton Bridge is a State listed heritage item, and is an iconic structure for the Grafton
community. An additional structure attached to the existing bridge may have an
unacceptable impact on the current bridge, and would require some closures of the existing
bridge while a new bridge was under construction.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 47
Further, the purpose of the project is to identify an alternative crossing of the Clarence River
in Grafton for road traffic, pedestrians and cyclists. The Grafton Bridge forms a strategic
connection in the east coast rail line. Any changes to the current alignment of the railway
line would be the responsibility of the ARTC.
4.1.22.5 Adjustments to the surrounding street network
All of the in-town options include traffic signalisation at specified intersections, with out of
town options including upgrades to roundabouts to increase capacity and enable turning
movements. Concept designs for intersections under each option are based on necessary
upgrades at 2049.
Adjustments suggested to the surrounding street network have been reviewed. The
suggestion to change the alignment of Option A slightly to follow along the southern end
Fitzroy Street, continuing past KFC on the western side and connecting it through to the
existing intersection with Villiers and Fitzroy Streets is not practical. The proposed alignment
of the bridge for Option A would have to swing to the west more in order to connect to the
southern end of Fitzroy Street. This change to the alignment is not seen as a viable option,
as the new alignment would make it difficult to provide the lane configuration of one lane
southbound and two lanes northbound on the new bridge, and one southbound lane of the
existing bridge. Difficulties would result from the need to configure the local street network
to enable one-way traffic on approach roads to the new and existing bridges on the Grafton
side.
The amendment suggested would also affect the Clarence River Sailing Club, affect more
residential properties on the Grafton side, quarantine an island of land between the new and
existing bridges, and have undesirable urban design impacts as the new bridge would no
longer be parallel to the existing bridge for most of its length.
4.1.22.6 Closing the existing bridge
A suggestion to close the existing bridge to vehicular traffic once a new bridge was opened,
allowing only pedestrians and cyclists to use the existing bridge is not viable. Traffic
modelling has shown there is a need for four transport lanes to cater for the growing Grafton
community into the future. By creating a new bridge, and closing the existing one to
vehicular traffic, the short and long-term transport needs for the Grafton and South Grafton
area would not be addressed, and the project objectives would not be met. Alternatively, if
the new bridge has two lanes in each direction, the increased width would add significantly
to the cost of all options, and this could affect the financial viability of the project.
4.1.22.7 Modification of Option C
The upgrades associated with Option C include a new roundabout at the intersection of the
Pacific Highway and Iolanthe Street, upgrading the Gwydir Highway between the Pacific
Highway and Bent Street, upgrading the roundabout at the intersection of the Gwydir
Highway and Bent Street, a new roundabout at the intersection of Ryan Street and Viaduct
Road and upgrading the Gwydir Highway and the Pacific Highway intersection with a new
roundabout. As such, access between Armidale Road and Iolanthe Street would be
improved.
Further refinements may be made to the intersection upgrades in the event that Option C is
selected as the preferred location for an additional crossing. The suggested modification to
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 48
improve access to Armidale Road and Iolanthe Street would be considered as part of
investigations into design refinements opportunities.
4.1.22.8 Modification of Option 15
Modifications to Option 15 by moving the connection to Summerland Way 800m to 1km
further north are not supported. The PROR included assessment of a number of other route
options in Corridors 4 and 5 that were located further downstream than Options 14 and 15.
As a result of the assessment process documented in the PROR, Options 14 and 15 were
the two options short-listed as the best performing options within these corridors. Options
further downstream added significantly to the costs to mitigate impacts on flooding, and also
had greater impacts on the natural environment and potential impacts on aboriginal cultural
heritage.
4.1.22.9 Grade of bridge connection to street level
The steepness of grades has been assessed as part of the RODR. All proposed new bridge
options have similar grades into Grafton. Options E, A, 14 and 15 have grades of
approximately 4% into Grafton and Options 11 and C have grades of approximately 5% into
Grafton. The grades are required to:
allow the in town options to connect to the existing street network at ground level
within a shorter distance than the out of town options as a result of the density of the
urban development in those locations
The higher minimum vertical clearance for the navigable channels required for the
out of town options.
All options have been designed using RMS design guidelines and a road safety audit has
been undertaken on all of the route options. The results are reported in the RODR.
4.1.22.10 Safety of design
All options have been designed using RMS design guidelines and a road safety audit has
been undertaken on all of the route options. The results are reported in the RODR.
Further refinements would be made to the intersection upgrades once a preferred route for
the additional crossing. The design refinement process would consider the design matters
raised in submissions.
4.1.22.11 Safety of existing bridge
The Grafton Bridge is an iconic structure and is listed on the State Heritage Register. The
existing Grafton Bridge was completed and opened to traffic in 1932. The bridge consists of
a steel double deck with a length of 438 metres, having 8 spans and 7 piers to support the
bridge. The piers are concrete with foundations in solid rock at depths between 9 and 23
metres below the high water level. This is documented in detail in the PROR for the
additional Crossing of the Clarence River at Grafton which is available on the RMS website.
Inspections, maintenance, repairs and rehabilitation of the existing bridge are carried out by
Australian Rail Track Corporation Ltd (ARTC) and the RMS via a partnership agreement.
Bridge structure maintenance work is carried out by ARTC, and the road deck, road surface,
approach spans and the footway maintenance is carried out by the RMS.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 49
The bridge inspections program includes regular visual, engineering and underwater dive
inspections.
Extensive preliminary investigations were carried out on all the route options. This included
geotechnical studies going back to 1975 where 5 boreholes were located in the river channel
downstream of the existing bridge.
Additional investigations carried out in 2003 included boreholes either side of the river and
bridge scour depth investigation. The details of these investigations, coupled with additional
studies undertaken are reported in the RODR Volume 3.
There are currently no identified structural deficiencies with the existing bridge that would
impede the ability of RMS to construct a new bridge in close proximity, or its current use,
including the current level of traffic, both on road and rail.
Time of day access restrictions are placed on the bridge due to the geometric constraints of
the kinks as opposed to a load limit on the bridge.
If the preferred option is close to the existing bridge, RMS would ensure any construction
technique employed on site would mitigate potential impacts on the structural integrity of the
existing bridge.
It is noted in terms of engineering solutions, there are many construction techniques now
available which minimise vibration and disturbance to surrounding areas when constructing
close to existing buildings.
4.1.22.12 Use of existing railway easement
Suggestions to use the existing railway easement through town as the approaches to a new
bridge, or to building a new rail bridge to address the current congestion problems are not
viable. With regard to the existing railway easement, it is not wide enough to support an
additional road alongside, and would require the acquisition of many properties within the
centre of town. The alternative of a new viaduct structure above, or tunnel below the
existing railway easement, would be too costly and would not be supported, as would a new
rail bridge, which would require the existing railway abutments either side of the river to be
realigned to account for a new rail bridge location.
4.1.22.13 Water supply
The suggested removal of the existing water main from the lower deck so that the bascule
span could be repaired to allow the passage of taller watercraft is not within the scope of this
project. In relation to this the Grafton Bridge project is about identifying a location for an
additional crossing of the Clarence River in Grafton. It is not the intention of the project to
identify ways to increase access for water craft in and around the existing bridge. This would
be a matter for the ARTC as the owners of the Grafton Bridge.
4.1.22.14 Transport hub
A proposal to create a transport hub on the outskirts of town to load goods onto smaller
vehicle would not only introduce a significant cost to the project in creating a freight
distribution centre on the outskirts of town, but also increase costs associated with double
handing of goods for transport companies. Given the relatively small proportion of heavy
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 50
vehicles using the bridge, this is not considered a viable option for solving the current
concerns associated with the existing Grafton Bridge and heavy vehicles in town.
4.1.22.15 Options involving Susan or Elizabeth Islands
In the Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage reports undertaken for the Preliminary Route
Options Report, Susan and Elizabeth Islands were assessed as significant places to the
community, including its Aboriginal cultural values, non-Aboriginal cultural values, and
possessing natural values.
Susan Island is a significant place to Aboriginal women, who have a close past and ongoing
associated with the island and its rainforest. Elizabeth Island was identified as a sacred
Aboriginal men’s site with high significance to the Aboriginal community.
As such, any option which connects to Susan Island or Elizabeth Island would not be
supported.
4.2 Environmental impacts
4.2.1 Noise and vibration - submissions
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section
Addressed
Noise and vibration
1. Existing noise experienced in several areas is
unacceptable.
13 4.2.2.1
2. The noise report assumes that areas already
affected would not be affected significantly and
this is challenged.
71 4.2.2.2
3. All options would increase noise, particularly at
night.
3,42,57 4.2.2.3
4. Noise associated with in town options would
affect more residents with steep grades from the
new bridge into town.
52,76,115,P2 4.2.2.3
5. Option E would have the highest night time noise
impact.
22 4.2.2.3
6. Options A and C would disturb the nursing home.
Any shortage of beds would be detrimental.
34,71 4.2.2.3
7. Increased noise could have an impact on health. 57 4.2.2.1
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 51
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section
Addressed
Noise and vibration
8. Option E would affect the St Marys Convent
residential and administration areas and new
conference facility in a severe and unacceptable
way. Noise within the Convent would exceed the
criteria in the NSW Road Noise Policy of 55dB(A)
between 7am and 10pm and 50dB(A) between
10pm and 7am. More information is required to
assess impacts.
59, 109 4.2.2.3
9. Noise and vibration impacts associated with
Option E would render the new conference facility
near the corner of Villiers Street and Victoria
Street Grafton unviable.
109 4.2.2.3
10. The noise report contains significant errors which
makes it difficult to interpret data.
71 4.2.2.2
11. Option A could increase noise more than
predicted because of the elevation of the
proposed bridge and inclusion of 3 lanes of traffic.
71 4.2.2.3
12. Options 14 and 15 would have less noise impact
on residents.
76, 94,115 4.2.2.3
13. Options 14 and 15 would bring noise to a
previously quiet residential area.
P1, 113 4.2.2.3
14. Option C would increase noise for properties on
Clarence Street because of the location of the
proposed road and installation of traffic lights.
82 4.2.2.3
15. Grafton Hospital would be sensitive to noise and
trucks braking with exhausts.
P2 4.2.2.4
16. It appears that under Option A, construction of
pier near the centre of Kent Street would lower
the level of the proposed road and increase
potential noise at 1 Fitzroy Street. It is unclear
what was modelled in the noise report.
71 4.2.2.2
17. The Noise report does not address benefits of
removing traffic if downstream options are
adopted.
71 4.2.2.3
18. Increased noise associated with option 11 would
be intolerable leading to an increased incidence
of health problems and worsening quality of life.
Health effects could include worse concentration,
difficult communication difficulties with relaxation
and sleep, impacts on hypertension and
cardiovascular outcomes. Suggest new bridge be
in a non-residential area.
57,79 4.2.2.3
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 52
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section
Addressed
Noise and vibration
19. The EPA notes that route option 11 would result
in the highest number of residential properties
affected by noise exceeding 55 dB(A) of a day
and 50 dB(A) of a night. Option 11 also has the
highest number of residential properties where
relative noise levels increase by 12 decibels or
more. The EPA therefore recommends that RMS
give due consideration to the noise impacts of
option 11 when making a decision on the final
location for the additional crossing of the
Clarence River at Grafton.
117 4.2.2.3
4.2.2 Noise and vibration – RMS response
4.2.2.1 Impact of noise on the community
RMS acknowledges that noise levels may impact on people’s amenity and lifestyle. A
discussion on the social impacts of noise is included in Volume 2 of the RODR: Technical
Paper: Noise Assessment (page 5). This section notes that different groups within the
community are vulnerable to different effects such as sleep disturbance, general annoyance,
and physiological effects. It is also noted that there are individuals within the community
who are more vulnerable to noise than the general population.
It is not within the scope of the project to identify solutions to existing noise problems,
including noise associated with B-doubles, that may be experienced from the current travel
patterns within Grafton. However, RMS recognises that this issue is of concern to the
community and in consultation with other regulatory agencies, is trialling technology to better
regulate vehicle noise impacts including the use of noise cameras.
The RODR assesses the comparative acoustic impacts of each of the six route options and
the no build scenario.
4.2.2.2 Accuracy of the noise technical study
The noise report provides an assessment of both predicted absolute noise levels and the
predicted change in noise levels for each option. The absolute noise levels are indicated by
the number of residential properties where noise levels would be more than 50 dBA at night
or 55 dBA during the day. The change in noise levels are indicated by the number of
residential properties where noise levels would increase by 12 dB or more compared to a no
build scenario at night or during the day. Both absolute noise levels and change in noise
levels are appropriate for a comparative assessment of the noise impacts of the six route
options. The report includes details of locations where noise levels would increase by more
than 12 dB as well as showing details of locations where absolute noise levels are above 55
dBA.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 53
The assessment criteria of an increase in noise level of 12dB, compared to a base case, is
in accordance with guidelines set out in the NSW Road Noise Policy (RNP). The policy
notes that a relative increase of 12dB represents slightly more than an approximate doubling
of perceived loudness (AS2659.1-1988) and is likely to trigger community reaction,
particularly in environments where there is a low existing level of traffic noise. RMS
acknowledges that some properties could sit just below this threshold.
The noise modelling takes into account a wide range of factors, including the level and
position of the new roadway.
In relation to errors within the report, it is acknowledged there is an error in regard to the
logger locations. Three of the 15 loggers deployed for the 2011 noise survey were not used
for the noise study due to a failure in the readings. Unfortunately, the data from one of these
loggers was included in Appendix D of the report which resulted in the error in the reference
number assigned to the logger. The report has been updated to address this error. The
recorded information from the loggers included in the assessment remains true and accurate
and does not impact on the overall noise assessment findings. Where there is a conflict in
the current report, the reader should rely on the address associated with the location rather
than the reference number.
4.2.2.3 Relative impact of different options
Noise modelling has been undertaken for the project for the purposes of route option
comparison. In order to provide a direct comparison between options, identical receiver
locations were used for each assessment. This allows for the benefit and disadvantage of
each option to be considered. Where dwellings were identified for acquisition, those
receivers were removed from the assessment. Predicted noise levels for all receivers were
then fed into acoustic indicators used for the project.
This study assessed the predicted noise levels from each route option. Option 11 is
identified as having the greatest impact from road traffic noise overall. Options E, A and C
result in similar road traffic noise impact for all indicators although Option E tends to affect
slightly more receivers due to its more remote alignment from the existing bridge. It also
affects non-residential receivers that are otherwise less affected by the other options. Whilst
Option 14 and 15 share the majority of their alignments, the realignment of Option 15 to the
north redirects traffic away from receivers along North Street and hence significantly reduces
the overall impact.
The number of properties that exceed the RNP criteria in the no build scenario is higher with
some options and lower with others. This is a result of the redistributions of traffic that occur
with the options and the proposed property acquisitions that are unique to each route
alignment.
As identified in the RODR, all options with the exception of Option A would result in at least
one property experiencing an increase in noise levels by 12dB or more at night 10 years
after the anticipated opening of the additional crossing. The number of properties range
from one residential property affected by Option C through to 51 residential properties
affected by Option 11. Option 11 would direct additional traffic into Fry Street which is
currently a quiet residential street.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 54
Submissions also expressed concern about the potential impacts of Option A on the nursing
home on Bent Street. Option A would involve the upgrade of Bent Street in front of the
existing nursing home. The Technical Paper – Noise Assessment in Volume 2 of the RODR
did not identify the nursing home as a property where noise levels would increase by 12dB
or more compared to the no build scenario, 10 years after opening. It is however shown in
the report that the noise levels during the daytime at the nursing home would be above the
55dBA criteria for all route options including the no build scenario.
In terms of increases in noise levels of 12dB or more, Options 14 and 15 would affect more
properties than Options E, A and C by directing more traffic through what are currently quiet
residential streets, including North Street, and Prince Street north of Dobie Street. Options
14 and 15 would have less impact on residential properties than Option 11. The numbers of
impacted properties are shown in the table Comparing the Options in the September
Community Update.
With regard to Option C, noise levels would increase by 12 dB or more on the property
located at the corner of Clarence Street and Pound Street, 18A Clarence Street. This is
identified in the Technical Paper – Noise Assessment in Volume 2 of the RODR. There are
also several properties along Clarence Street between Fitzroy and Pound Street at which
noise levels that would exceed the daytime Road Noise Policy criteria as identified in the
RODR.
With regard to specific instances of RNP guideline exceedances, all reasonable and feasible
mitigation measures would be considered and applied to control road traffic noise levels
during the concept design and environmental assessment phase for the preferred option,
RMS would consider the mitigation of the potential noise impacts of the new bridge as part of
the preferred route assessment and design process.
4.2.2.4 Grafton Hospital
The detailed noise assessment does not identify the Grafton Hospital as being a
differentiator with regard to traffic noise impacts from each option. Further, all options include
the upgrading of the Villiers Street and Dobie Street roundabout to improve turning
movements for heavy vehicles. This upgrade would encourage heavy vehicles to use Dobie
Street rather than Arthur Street, where the Grafton Hospital is located, to get to and from
Villiers Street.
4.2.2.5 Future investigations
A more detailed assessment of the impacts of road traffic noise on individual properties
would be undertaken as a part of the future assessment of the preferred route option. Where
noise levels are predicted to exceed the noise targets in the Road Noise Policy, mitigation
would be considered in accordance with the RMS Environmental Noise Management
Manual.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 55
4.2.3 Air quality – submissions
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section
Addressed
Air quality
1. All in town options would increase air pollution. 3,32,42 4.2.4
2. Option E would have air quality and associated
health impacts on the Convent residents and
visitors.
59 4.2.4
3. Out of town options would minimise localised air
pollution impacts.
P2,115 4.2.4
4. The EPA has reviewed the information provided
and concluded that air and water quality issues
can be readily managed across the various
options and do not present significant constraints
or have significant bearing on the route selection
process.
117 4.2.4
4.2.4 Air quality – RMS response
With regard to the potential impacts on air quality, particularly for the in town options, the
supporting objectives of the project included minimising the impact on residential amenity,
including noise, vibration and air quality.
A comparative assessment of air quality for the route options is included in the RODR (p127-
128). Fuel consumption is being used as a proxy for air quality. Fuel consumption in urban
areas during the 8-9am morning and 4-5pm afternoon peak hours has been estimated as an
indicator of relative air quality impacts. Options with higher fuel consumption are likely to
have poorer relative air quality.
Options C and E would result in the least fuel consumption in urban areas. Option A is the
next best performing. Options C, E and A reduce road network delay better than the
downstream options and result in lower overall fuel consumption in urban areas.
Options 14 and 15 have the highest fuel consumption. These options do not reduce delays
in the Bent Street/Craig Street/Fitzroy Street corridor to the same extent as the other
options, resulting in lower speeds and higher fuel consumption in urban areas.
Air quality associated with construction activities would also be assessed during the
environmental assessment phase for the preferred option. Reasonable and feasible
mitigation measures would be put in place during construction to manage any localised
impacts on air quality associated with construction activities.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 56
4.2.5 Social impacts – submissions
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section Addressed
Social Impact
1. Option E avoids the Dovedale area but would require some relocation of residents and affect others through noise and air quality impacts. It would require widening of streets and removal of homes and trees.
36,79.80,82,76,93, 42,46,50, 86,98, P2
4.1.14.2, 4.2.6, 4.2.6.1, 4.2.2.3 & 4.2.18.1
2. Option E would have significant, lasting and deleterious impacts on the Convent, its occupants and the functional use of the old and new buildings by the community.
59,109 4.2.6 & 4.2.6.1
3. Option E would require widening of streets and removal of trees.
98 4.2.6 & 4.1.14.1
4. Option A would require some relocation of residents and affect others through noise and air quality impacts. It would:
76, 42,46,50, 86,98, P2
4.2.12, 4.2.2.3 & 4.2.4
a. Isolate 1 to 7 Fitzroy Street from the Grafton community.
71 4.2.20
b. Require widening of streets and removal of homes and trees.
71,98 4.1.14.1
5. Option C would require some relocation of residents and affect others through noise and air quality impacts. It would:
76, 42,46,50, 86, P2 4.2.12, 4.2.2.3 & 4.2.4
a. Affect a large number of properties including construction of a road. RODR description of not being affected despite being one property away is not supported.
25,82,93,98 4.1.14.1 & 4.2.12
b. Isolate two properties in one section of Clarence Street leaving them between the bridge and the railway and opposite businesses.
82 4.2.6
c. Require widening of streets and removal of homes and trees.
98 4.1.14.1 & 4.2.18.1
d. Dislocate residents who purchased on the understanding that a future bridge would be upstream.
106 4.2.12
6. Option C would severely impact Grafton’s unique character and charm and would cut a swathe through the heart of the older area of Grafton.
106 4.2.6.1
7. Option C would involve the relocation of the Gummyaney Aboriginal Preschool with severe consequences for children and families. Families using public transport may be unable to access a relocated preschool.
111,112 4.2.6.1
8. Land for expansion may not be available at a relocated site for the pre-school.
111,112 4.2.6.1 & 4.2.12
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 57
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section Addressed
Social Impact
9. The pre-school is situated on Aboriginal land which is significant to the Aboriginal community and within a natural environment that is important to the children.
111,112 4.2.6.1
10. Option 11 has the least overall disruption for the community.
11 4.2.6
11. Option 11 would affect a working farm for which compensation would not be adequate.
51 4.2.6, 4.2.10 & 4.2.12
12. Option 11 would have the biggest negative impact on the largest number of people in their family homes.
8,25,93 4.2.2.3 & 4.2.6
13. Option 11 would have a detrimental impact on Fry Street.
104 4.2.2.3 & 4.2.6
14. Option 11 would provide an opportunity to install a cycle loop between old and new bridges improving open space.
89 4.1.6.3
15. Option 14 would affect existing houses on North Street.
98 4.2.2.3 & 4.2.6
16. Options 14 and 15 would avoid detrimental social and conservation impacts and affect the least residential and business areas, traversing farmland and bushland.
8, 115 4.2.6 & 4.2.12
17. Options 14 and 15 would bring heavy traffic into a previously quiet residential area. Would affect two working farms and recreational areas of significance.
P1, 113 4.2.2.3 & 4.2.6
18. Option 15 would avoid house frontages and has the least number of property impacts.
14,93.55 4.2.12
19. Option 11 would result in a loss of privacy with road impinging on fence lines.
8 4.2.6
4.2.6 Social impacts – RMS response
As shown in the table Comparing the Options in the September 2012 Community Update, all
options for the additional crossing have potential social impacts.
The purpose of the project is to identify an additional crossing of the Clarence River at
Grafton to address the short-term and long-term transport needs. While one option may
benefit one specific area of the community, the project is looking at the entire Grafton and
surrounds, and is seeking to provide an overall balance of benefits and impacts.
In terms of noise and amenity impacts from different options, the RODR Technical Paper:
Noise Assessment highlighted the predicted noise levels from each individual option. Option
11 is identified as having the greatest impact from road traffic noise overall, particularly along
Fry Street. Options E, A and C result in similar road traffic noise impact for all indicators
although Option E tends to affect slightly more receivers due to its more remote alignment
from the existing bridge. It also affects non-residential receivers that are otherwise less
affected by the other options. Whilst Option 14 and 15 share the majority of their alignments,
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 58
the realignment of Option 15 to the north redirects traffic away from receivers aligning North
Street and hence significantly reduces the overall impact.
Any option identified as the preferred location for the Additional Crossing of the Clarence
River in Grafton would undergo a concept design and environmental assessment phase
which would investigate measures to mitigate impacts identified in the technical papers
under the RODR as well as impacts identified by the community.
4.2.6.1 Other Impacts
Many of the comments raised in the Social Impacts table have been addressed in other
parts of Section 4, including noise and vibration, connectivity and property impacts.
Notwithstanding this, the following comments are provided to address specific matters
raised.
In relation to Option E, it is noted that the southern end of Villiers St is currently very quiet as
a result of being a no through road. As a result of this, Option E would impact on the amenity
of properties in this area due to the increased traffic along the southern end of Villiers St.
Option C would affect the existing street layout on the northern side of the new bridge. The
creation of a new alignment from Pound Street for the approach to the new bridge on the
northern side, is inconsistent with the underlying street layout.
Option C may also have property impacts on the Gummyaney Aboriginal Preschool site.
Initial indications for Option C include a potential acquisition on the corner of the preschool
site. Any potential acquisition would be minor and unlikely to require relocation of the
preschool.
4.2.7 Amenity streetscape and views - submissions
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section Addressed
Amenity/ streetscape/ views
Option E
1. Has positive aspects but directs traffic through areas such as Victoria Street, which is a quiet and pristine heritage area.
56 4.2.6.1
2. Frames the old bridge without taking away from existing views.
62, 80 4.2.8.2
3. Would create loss of amenity and an impact on the aesthetics of the existing bridge.
P2 4.2.6 & 4.2.8.2
4. Would have a major impact on aesthetic issues. 78 4.2.6
5. Ties in with the river scheme and boardwalk. 80,82 4.1.6.1 & 4.2.6
6. Would have a large visual impact on the main riverscape of Grafton.
89 4.2.8.2
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 59
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section Addressed
Amenity/ streetscape/ views
7. Would involve widening of streets and the loss of significant trees.
98 4.1.14.1 & 4.2.18.1
8. Would involve a substantial loss of aesthetics for the building and amenity impacts for the occupants, workers and visitors to the St Marys Convent and the conference facility.
109 4.2.6 & 4.2.6.1
Option A
9. Would have a major impact on aesthetic issues. 56,78,P2 4.2.6
10. Would have minimal impact on existing streetscape.
9 4.1.14.4
11. Would obscure upstream views of the old bridge removing one of its greatest tourist attractions
71, 78, 89 4.2.8.2
12. Would create loss of amenity and an impact on the aesthetics of the existing bridge.
78 4.2.6 & 4.2.8.2
Option C
13. Would have minimal impact on existing streetscape.
9 4.2.6.1
14. Would have a major impact on aesthetic issues. 56,78,P2 4.2.6
15. Would create loss of amenity and an impact on the aesthetics of the existing bridge.
78 4.2.6 & 4.2.8.2
Option 11
16. Moves traffic through the quiet end of Fry Street 56 4.2.2.3
17. Does not affect views of the existing bridge. 78 4.2.8.2
18. Would allow access to a cycle path and recreational facilities at either side of the bridge and would contribute more to Grafton.
78,89 4.1.6.3
19. Is still close to the CBD and is a more suitable option than C.
112 4.1.2.1 & 4.2.2.3
Option 14 and 15
20. Great Marlow and Kirchner Street picnic and boating areas are a stunning part of the Grafton landscape and would be disrupted by options 14 and 15
37 4.2.8.1 & 4.2.16.2
21. Would open another section of the river rarely seen to tourism and links to Corcoran Park.
76 4.2.8.1
22. Would severely impact Corcoran Park as it would be the only access to the river on the north side, currently a tourist stop for out of town families, river users and a year round access point for the Yacht Club.
P1, 113 4.2.8.1
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 60
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section Addressed
Amenity/ streetscape/ views
23. An older residence as well as new housing developments from Arthur to North Street would lose their rural and river views to a long viaduct and fog-prone monolithic bridge.
P1, 113 4.2.8.2 & 4.2.16.2
24. Option 15 preserves amenity of Grafton. 3 4.2.6
25. Option 15 would avoid the detrimental impacts on the existing community.
115 4.2.6
4.2.8 Amenity streetscape and views – RMS response
4.2.8.1 Corcoran Park
Impacts to Corcoran Park and access to the river were noted as impacts of Options 14 and
15. Local road works associated with Options 14 and 15 would maintain links to Corcoran
Park to ensure access is maintained. The Landscape and Urban Character technical paper
identified potential negative impacts on Corcoran Park resulting from a new bridge as per
Options 14 and 15.
4.2.8.2 Visual impacts
The Technical Paper for Non-Aboriginal Heritage identified that Options E, A and C would all
have impacts on views to and from the existing bridge, with Option A having the greatest
potential impact.
Option E would have a visual impact, both on views to the bridge from upstream areas of
Grafton (including the public area at the southern end of Prince Street), South Grafton and
Susan Island, as well as views from the bridge towards these locations. The impact was
seen as indirect, given it would not impact on the structure of the bridge, but it was
considered to be a “moderate to high” impact.
Option A would have a visual impact both on views to the bridge from upstream areas of
Grafton (including the public area at the southern end of Prince Street), South Grafton and
Susan Island, as well as views from the bridge towards these locations. The bridge’s
landmark qualities would also be obscured on the upstream side of the bridge by Option A.
The visual impact from Option A was considered to be a “high” impact.
Option C would have a visual impact both on views to the bridge from downstream areas of
Grafton, as well as a moderate visual impact from public viewing areas on the upstream side
due to being an addition to the bulk, scale and form of the existing bridge.
With regard to public views of the bridge, it is noted the two main public areas for viewing the
bridge from the river bank are both located upstream of the existing bridge, one at the end of
Prince Street in Grafton, and one along the levee wall and park area running from Cowan
Street to the South Grafton Ex-Servicemen’s Club.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 61
Concerns were also raised regarding visual amenity impacts. In this regard, it is noted that
all options impact on the visual amenity of the riverscape of Grafton as all options introduce
a significant piece of infrastructure crossing the Clarence River.
Refinement of the concept design of the bridge as a part of the future assessment of the
preferred route option would investigate ways to minimise the impact of the new bridge on
the existing character of the town.
4.2.9 Agriculture – submissions
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section
Addressed
Agriculture
1. Good farmland would be affected by options 14
and 15.
1,31 4.2.10
2. Significant compensation would be required for
the total disruption of three working farms
associated with option 14 and 15.
7,31 4.2.10 &
4.2.12
3. Option 11 would significantly disrupt agriculture
on a 100-acre property that could not be
replaced.
51 4.2.10
4. DPI supports the RODR’s approach to regionally
significant farmland, noting that loss of regionally
significant farmland is an indicator of economic
impact.
116 4.2.10
5. The Mid North Coast Farmland Mapping Project
Final Recommendations Report recommends that
the map should be used as an information
resource when state agencies plan for public
infrastructure.
116
4.2.10
4.2.10 Agriculture – RMS response
The Mid Coast Farmland Mapping Project Final Recommendations Report was used as a
background document in the development of the RODR, with loss of regionally significant
farmland used as an indicator of economic impact. The use of this mapping was endorsed
by DP&I.
The RODR identifies Option 15 as having the highest impact upon regionally significant
farmland, followed by Options 14 and 11. Option 15 also has the highest area and number of
potentially directly affected rural properties as the alignment would mainly pass through
undeveloped land.
If farmland was required to be acquired as part of the design and construction of an
additional crossing, the RMS’s property acquisition policy would be applied.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 62
4.2.11 Property acquisition – submissions
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section
Addressed
Property acquisition
1. Options 14 and 15 would require the demolition of
one house. Several houses made uninhabitable
by noise and vibration would require
compensation.
7 4.2.2.3 &
4.2.12
2. Desire to negotiate fairly for acquisition if Option
E chosen and affects property.
11 4.2.12
3. Total number of properties affected by Option A is
significantly higher than the next highest number
of impacts.
71 4.2.12
4. Would like house acquired if option 11 is built as
do not want traffic and noise near house.
97 4.2.12
5. Options 11, 14 and 15 have less impact on
business.
52 4.2.12
6. Options A, E and C would affect established
businesses.
52 4.2.12
7. Option A has the greatest impact on established
businesses (21 compared with a maximum of 7),
which is significant given the loss of a large
number of employers.
71 4.2.12
8. Option E involves the loss of property value to the
Convent and conference facility.
109 4.2.12
4.2.12 Property acquisition – RMS response
The term “directly affected property” was defined in the RODR as where a route option is
likely to require full or partial acquisition of the property. The intention of defining this term
relating to property acquisitions was to differentiate circumstances where property
acquisition was necessary (thus there was a direct property impact) as opposed to other
impacts including those associated with increased noise from changing travel patterns or
changes in local road access arrangements. While the latter are acknowledged as impacts,
they are considered to be indirect impacts.
In terms of numbers of properties directly affected by route options, Options 14 and 15 have
the lowest number of property acquisitions associated with residential properties, and the
highest number of rural properties potentially directly affected by property acquisitions.
Conversely, Option C has the highest number of residential properties directly affected,
closely followed by Options 11 and A. Option A has the greatest number of properties
directly affected overall due to the number of potential property acquisitions along Bent
Street. Option A also has the highest numbers of established businesses potentially directly
affected, again due to the upgrade of Bent Street in South Grafton.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 63
The current RMS policy relating to property acquisition relates to property required for road
purposes as a result of an option being identified as a preferred option. There is currently no
policy relating to compensation for indirect impacts. However, RMS seeks to minimise
indirect impacts through concept design, including incorporating mitigation measures such
as noise treatments.
After a preferred option is identified RMS can respond to requests for acquisition of directly
affected properties. The decision on the recommended preferred route is anticipated before
the end of the year, with the final decision on the preferred option expected in 2013. In the
event that a property is required for road purposes resulting from an option being identified
as the preferred option, the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 provides
that, if and when the land is acquired by RMS under that Act, the amount of compensation
would not be less than market value (assessed under that Act), unaffected by the proposal.
In relation to other submissions received for potentially “directly impacted properties”, a more
detailed assessment of the impacts on individual properties would be undertaken as a part of
the future assessment of the preferred route option. Mitigation measures would be
investigated during this phase to identify ways to minimise the impacts on properties
potentially affected by the preferred route option, including minimising any property
acquisitions, where possible.
4.2.13 Navigation and river use – submissions
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section
Addressed
River use
1. Options A, E and C would create navigational
issues on the river.
76 4.2.14
2. Option 14 would have a higher clearance for
navigation on the river.
76 4.2.14
3. Options 14 and 15 would not grossly affect
the tourism of the Bridge to Bridge Ski race;
other options would.
76 4.2.14
4. Option E would affect the waterfront and
vessels using that section of the river.
101 4.2.14
5. Options 14 and 15 are too close to Elizabeth
Island and a boat ramp used by a sailing
club, naval cadets and dragon boating.
101 4.2.14
6. The height of the bridge would not allow the
yacht club to access the Clarence River at
Corcoran Park for its year round events. 17
metres proposed does not appear to allow for
tidal variations.
P1, 113 4.2.14
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 64
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section
Addressed
River use
7. The lowered height would not allow ocean-
going vessels up to the Grafton City end of
the Clarence River.
P1, 113 4.2.14
8. Closure of the main boat ramp by a bridge under
Option 14 or 15 would affect boating activity
including the local sailing club on North Street.
P1, 113 4.2.14
4.2.14 Navigation and river use – RMS response
In terms of navigation impacts, all options would introduce additional pylons into the
Clarence River, thus creating additional navigational constraints. All options have been
designed to accommodate two 35 metre wide navigation channels. Options E, A and C
would have a vertical clearance of 9.1 metres in height to be consistent with the height of the
existing bridge. Options 11, 14 and 15, would have a vertical clearance of 17 metres in
height, retaining access for vessels that currently moor at Dovedale. The clearances for the
navigation channels were developed in consultation with NSW Maritime (now part of RMS),
Clarence River Sailing Club, Big River Sky Club, Bridge to Bridge ski race, Clarence River
yacht club and Clarence Valley Council.
It is acknowledged that Options 11,14 and 15 present a constraint to the very small number
of vessels with masts of greater than 17 metres in height which may wish to sail up to the
Grafton Bridge. Options 14 and 15 are less than 3km downstream of the existing bridge,
and Option 11 is approximately 1km. In view of the facilities for yachts available at Corcoran
Park, the benefits of enabling a very small number of large ocean going vessels to access a
further 3km of the river upstream are far less than the costs associated with lifting the new
bridge higher to accommodate these larger vessels.
Impacts to Corcoran Park and access to the river were also noted with Options 14 and 15.
Local road works associated with Options 14 and 15 would maintain links to Corcoran Park
to ensure access is maintained. The Landscape and Urban Character technical paper
identified potential negative impacts on Corcoran Park resulting from Options 14 and 15.
A discussion of the restrictions to river use with each of the options is included in Volume 2
of the RODR under the Technical Paper: Social and Economic, page 48.
Further assessment of impacts on river use and the waterfront would be undertaken during
the concept design and environmental assessment phase of once a preferred option is
identified. Measures to mitigate impacts would be considered as part of the assessment.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 65
4.2.15 Flooding – submissions
Issue raised in submission Submission
number
Section
Addressed
Flooding and river flow
1. Concerned about additional flood levee banks. 1 4.2.16.2
2. An embankment associated with options 14 and
15 and option 11 could have a detrimental effect
on land drainage and flooding, disrupt floodplain
flows and or require greater flood levee works.
7,22,31 4.2.16.2
3. Options 11, 14 and 15 are likely to have a
reduced impact on flood mitigation issues.
52 4.2.16.1 &
4.2.16.2
4. Previous hydrology reports showed that a bridge
outside the study area would have a lesser
impact on raising river levels in flood times.
71 4.2.16.5
5. Any afflux would have a significant effect on the
Grafton area, as the levee would only protect the
town in a 1:20 Annual Exceedance Probability
(AEP) 1 in 20 year flood.
71 4.2.16.1 &
4.2.16.2
6. If a new bridge is built and makes the existing
flood situation worse, then flood protection to
1:100 AEP.
71 4.2.16.1 &
4.2.16.2
7. Option A’s piers would obstruct the river and
increase flood levels.
71 4.2.16.6
8. Options 14 and 15 would provide a road system
not directly affected by floods.
76 4.2.16.1 &
4.2.16.2
9. Query how level under Kent Street viaduct can be
achieved with known local ponding issues. The
additional cost could be large.
82 4.2.16.4
10. Will work address the low-level flood prone
highway on the south side of Grafton from the
sawmill to the higher ground leading to Centenary
Drive?
93 4.2.16.2
11. Option C involves the lowering of Pound and
Grieves Street and would have intrinsic problems
with flooding and be vulnerable to pump failure.
98,115 4.2.16.4
12. Option 14 and 15 in the floodplain would put a
huge constraint on that area and would increase
the difficulties during floods.
P1, 113 4.2.16.1 &
4.2.16.2
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 66
Issue raised in submission Submission
number
Section
Addressed
13. Raising levee walls and adding additional levees
for Options 14 and 15 would disrupt the
landscape in the floodplain and increase the
environmental impact.
P1, 113 4.2.16.2
14. Downstream residents would need expert advice
about flood impacts.
P1, 113 4.2.16.1 &
4.2.16.6
15. Option C would lower Pound Street to pass the
proposed road under the rail viaduct. This is
infeasible as this area is already prone to
flooding. A drain would be required under the RL.
It would be vulnerable to pump failure.
98,106 4.2.16.4
16. Option E could expose St Mary’s Convent to
greater flood risk.
106 4.2.16.1 &
4.2.16.2
17. Any out of town option would improve evacuation
during flood time with less congestion, improving
contingency; and avoiding Option C-Pound Street
approach road flooding at the railway viaduct,
which occurs during most flood times.
115 4.2.16.3
18. Flood study did not address the impacts of the
back eddy and flows at the existing bridge.
115 4.2.16.6
19. Excessive ponding, associated with Pound Street
drainage, would bring with it the increased risk of
water borne and mosquito borne infections such
as Ross River Fever and Barmah Forest Virus.
106 4.2.16.4
20. The linkage of Option 14 with Centenary Drive
would be of benefit in a flood and for B-doubles
from Coffs Harbour.
76, 105 4.2.16.1 &
4.2.16.3
4.2.16 Flooding – RMS response
4.2.16.1 Flood immunity
In terms of the flood immunity associated with the six short-listed route options, all options
were designed based on the following criteria:
Option Design:
Waterway structures outside of the Grafton levee banks, including the main bridge
and viaducts, must be of sufficient height to maintain a freeboard during a 100 year
Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) design flood event.
Bridges within the Grafton levees (Alumy Creek and minor drainage) must be flood
immune during a 20 year ARI design flood event.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 67
The main approach roads to the new bridge must be flood immune during a 20 year
ARI design flood event.
Flood Impacts:
Proposed options should not adversely impact the flood immunity in Grafton and
South Grafton. Where impacts are identified, design mitigation measures would be
implemented to maintain the current level of flood immunity.
4.2.16.2 Alteration of existing levees
All options require lengths of the current levees to be raised by up to 0.1m. The length of
levees to be raised ranges from 11.75km (Option E) to 19.5km (Option 11). There are no
new flood levees included as part of the route option preliminary concept designs.
In relation to Options 14 and 15, it is acknowledged in Volume 2 of the RODR Technical
Paper: Landscape and Urban Character that there are large viaducts, fill embankments and
roundabouts that impact on the existing landscape character of the open floodplain. Further
assessments into landscape and urban character would be undertaken during the concept
design and environmental assessment phase once a preferred option is identified.
Several submissions requested that RMS increases the flood immunity of the Grafton and
South Grafton areas as part of the construction of any additional crossing.
The current flood levees for the town of Grafton and South Grafton provide flood immunity
for a flood approximately equivalent to a 1 in 20 year ARI design flood event. The intention
of the project is to maintain the current level of immunity as a result of increased piers and
structures within the Clarence River. Providing additional flood immunity for the Grafton
area is outside the scope of the project.
4.2.16.3 Evacuation during floods
The RODR discusses the implications of each route option with regards to flooding
emergency response. Options 11, 14 and 15 would provide an additional evacuation route
out of Grafton in the event that the Grafton CBD routes are inundated or affected by a road
crash or traffic congestion. It also notes that for Option C, the lowering of the bridge
approach road under the railway viaduct may result in access to the new bridge being
compromised earlier than in other options. One of the flooding design criteria for the route
options included no adverse impacts on flood evacuation of Grafton.
4.2.16.4 Lowering of existing streets
Specific concerns were raised in relation to flooding of Option C which involves the lowering
of Pound Street under the rail viaduct and also Option A in relation to flooding around Kent
Street.
The current preliminary concept designs do not indicate any lowering of the road along Kent
Street beneath the existing bridge approach viaduct or the railway viaduct.
As part of the RODR, the flood impact assessment undertaken for the six route options aims
to:
Estimate the flood impacts associated with each route option design
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 68
Identify necessary mitigation measures required to maintain the current level of flood
immunity within Grafton and South Grafton following the construction of the second
crossing
Identify qualitatively the effects of each option on flood evacuation.
As a result of local flooding impacts around Pound Street under the railway viaducts, further
mitigation measures were identified in the RODR as being required for Option C to achieve
immunity during the 20 year ARI event, including completing the following:
Increasing the capacity of the existing gravity drainage system servicing the Pound /
Kent Street area by the installation of three additional 1050mm flap gated culverts
emptying into the Clarence River;
A catch drain north of Option C;
A detention basin south of Option C with a 560m3 capacity and a design bed level of
0.7m AHD;
A 2m3/s capacity pump station to extract water from the detention basin; and
8 x 0.5m x 1m box culverts under Option C, providing connectivity between the
catchment north of Option C and the proposed detention basin.
These mitigation measures would allow flood free access to the new bridge in a 20 year ARI
event flood.
The above drainage features have been sized ensuring that the efficiency of the proposed
drainage infrastructure is limited by the proposed pump capacity, not the associated
detention basin or culverts under Option C
Although this drainage strategy has a primary objective focused on achieving the desired
flood immunity requirements for Option C, this measure would have a residual benefit for
surrounding property owners. The drainage strategy would reduce the occurrence of local
stormwater flooding within an area of problem drainage within Grafton.
The conceptual drainage strategy has been designed to be free draining (not requiring
pumping) during local rainfall events which occur when the Clarence River is not in flood.
When the Clarence River is in flood, elevated water levels within the Clarence River do not
allow for gravity drainage from Grafton, requiring the use of the pumps to drain the
Pound/Kent Street area.
If Option C is selected as the preferred route option, further assessment of flood
management measures would be undertaken to refine the drainage arrangements for the
area. This assessment would include investigating the provision of a stand-by pump to
manage the residual risks associated with pumping.
4.2.16.5 Location of a new bridge
A submission expressed the view that previous hydrology reports showed a bridge outside of
the study area (presumably Grafton and South Grafton areas) would have a lesser impact on
raising river levels in flood times.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 69
The flooding assessment undertaken as part of the RODR assessed the flood impacts
associated with the six route options only. It also identified necessary mitigation measures
required to maintain the current level of flood immunity within Grafton and South Grafton
following construction of the proposed route option design.
4.2.16.6 Flood modelling
As per the RODR Technical Paper: Flooding, the detailed flood model was completed using
the lower Clarence River flood model, originally developed and calibrated as part of the
Lower Clarence River Flood Study Review (WBM, 2004). The 2004 Lower Clarence River
Flood model is the latest publicly available flood model of the lower Clarence River
catchment; defining the regional flood behaviour between Mountain View, upstream of
Grafton, and the Clarence River entrance at Yamba/Iluka. This model has been used in
consultation and with the approval of Clarence Valley Council.
Further to this, the modelling also took into account pier locations in the river for each bridge
design, which were developed as part of the latest route option design report.
Information to assist the Grafton community to understand the flood impacts associated with
any of the six short-listed options is provided in Volume 2 of the RODR Technical Paper:
Flooding.
4.2.17 Fauna and Flora – submissions
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section
Addressed
Fauna
1. Option 15 would disrupt significant fauna in Great
Marlow. This includes nesting and resident
ospreys, black swans, duck, transitory birds
including jabirus and wedge tailed eagles and
other birds.
7,31 4.2.18.2
2. Option E would disrupt flying foxes. 54 4.2.18.2
Flora
1. Construction of Option E would require the
removal of a large and significant fig tree at the
corner of Villiers and Victoria Street and its
removal would be of great concern.
59,109 4.2.18.1 &
4.2.18.2
2. If the second bridge is located beside the existing
bridge it would involve the removal of many trees.
P2 4.2.18.1
Flora
3. Options 14 and 15 and in town options (A, E, C
and 11) cannot be accurately compared in terms
of removal of trees en route because (A, C, E,
and 11) trees have not been counted along the
extent of the route to Summerland Way.
115 4.2.18.1
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 70
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section
Addressed
4. Construction of Option C would not disturb
ecologically sensitive areas not already affected
by construction of the levee bank.
71 4.2.18.3
4.2.18 Fauna and Flora – RMS response
4.2.18.1 Removal of trees
In terms of impacts from each option, all options result in the loss of trees within the Grafton
and South Grafton area. Removal of trees was considered in two of the papers.
1. The Technical Paper: Non-Aboriginal Heritage considers the comparative potential
impact on plantings of cultural significance. This considers the contribution of trees
as heritage items as well as their collective effect on streetscape and setting.
2. The Technical Paper: Landscape and Urban Character also considers the ability of
each of the route options to retain the existing landscape character of the area,
including minimising removal of trees.
Tree removal within the indicative road boundaries has been considered for each of the
options. With the current design it is not anticipated at this stage that any tree removal
outside of the indicative road boundary would take place as a result of the options. This is
subject to further refinement and assessment during the concept design and environmental
assessment phase for the preferred option.
With regards to impact on tree plantings of Non-Aboriginal cultural significance, Option 14
has the greatest impact on tree plantings of non-Aboriginal cultural significance in the area,
with 140 trees potential impacted by works associated with the new crossing. Option E has
the second greatest impact, with 116 trees potentially affected. Option A impacts on a total
of 65 trees, which is the option with the least impact on planted trees.
It is also noted in the RODR under the landscape and urban character section that Option E
impacts on existing landscape particularly on Villiers Street including the removal of some
large fig trees. Also Option 11 impacts on existing landscape character particularly the Fry
Street area including some large fig trees.
The RODR also made specific mention of Option E which would impact on foraging trees for
the flying fox due to the removal of the large fig tree on the corner of Villiers and Victoria
Streets.
4.2.18.2 Fauna
One of the submissions notes that Option E would disrupt flying foxes. As mentioned above
the RODR states that Option E would impact on foraging trees for the flying fox due to the
removal of the large fig tree on the corner of Villiers and Victoria Streets as well as
potentially impacting on the flight path of the species from Susan Island where a breeding
colony occurs, and thus the potential for bridge or vehicle strike.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 71
Another submission expressed concern about Option 15 as the proposed road through the
Great Marlow area could impact on threatened birds, which were believed to not be
identified in the supporting technical papers.
Fauna habitat in the form of drainage soaks within potential freshwater wetlands and fauna
habitat in the form of constructed drainage lines have been identified in proximity to Options
14 and 15. It is noted in the RODR that these form ephemeral habitats for many bird species
(including the threatened black-necked stork). This includes habitat for wetland bird species
such as ducks, swans and other wetland birds such as migratory and threatened species
(e.g. Black-necked Stork). The threatened Black-necked Stork (or Jabiru) has been explicitly
mentioned within the RODR as likely to infrequently use forging resources in proximity to
Options 14 and 15.
As no nests were detected in proximity to the route options for large birds which would
routinely use the same nest annually for breeding such as the Osprey, White-bellied Sea-
eagle, Wedge-tailed Eagle or Black-necked Stork, these species were not identified within
the RODR as a constraint.
4.2.18.3 Other Flora
One of the submissions noted that Option C would not disturb ecologically sensitive areas
that have not already been impacted by levee construction. The RODR notes that Options
E, A and C were found to have the lowest impact on areas of Endangered Ecological
Communities as the majority of the routes are in urbanised areas. Options E and A only
impact on small areas of reedlands. Option C also directly impacts on degraded riparian
forest near Alipou Creek and also remnant eucalypts near the Pacific Highway.
Further assessments into flora and fauna (ecology) would be undertaken during the concept
design and environmental assessment phase once a preferred route is identified. This
would consider ways to minimise and manage impacts on ecology.
4.2.19 Non-Aboriginal heritage – submissions
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section
Addressed
Non-aboriginal heritage
1. Option 15 preserves heritage of Grafton. 3 4.2.20
2. Option 11 would destroy some iconic homes on
the northern side of the river.
51 4.2.20
3. Options 11,14 and 15 have least impact on
heritage.
52 4.2.20
4. Options A and C would have a major impact on
heritage issues.
56 4.2.20
5. Option E would destroy the heritage value of St
Marys Convent, which is of heritage significance
for its association with the Sisters of Mercy and
for former students and staff.
59,98 4.2.20
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 72
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section
Addressed
Non-aboriginal heritage
6. St Mary’s Convent would be significantly
interrupted and physically impacted by Option E
including by removing views to and from the
Convent.
59,109 4.2.20
7. Option E would also have indirect impacts on the
heritage significance of the Convent in the context
of the other local heritage items and significant
trees on Victoria Street
109 4.2.18.2 &
4.2.20
8. The Convent building and archives could be
affected by noise, vibration, emissions and
construction associated with Option E.
59,109 4.2.2.3 &
4.2.20
9. The existing bridge is a state listed heritage item.
Any bridge near the current bridge would impact
the aesthetic value of the bridge.
62,71,89 4.1.22.4,
4.2.8.2 &
4.2.20
10. Option A would affect the historical aspect of the
existing bridge including approach abutments.
62,71,89 4.1.22.4 &
4.2.20
11. Heritage listed Induna wreck is located slightly
upstream of option A and could be damaged by
construction.
62,71 4.2.20
12. Option A would affect areas of Fitzroy St that are
part of the Council Heritage Area and on the
National Trust Heritage list and also heritage
houses in Bent St.
71 4.2.20
13. Options 11, E, C, 14 and 15 have less impact on
heritage values than option A.
71 4.2.20
14. Option C would severely affect 36 Villiers Street
Grafton, which was built in 1878 or before.
Moving the house would not be practical because
of its age and the important context within which it
sits.
110 4.2.20
15. All in town options have the highest impact on
non-Aboriginal heritage impacts.
115 4.2.20
16. Heritage impacts have not fully been considered
for Option C. Pound Street, in particularly
Dunvegan and also the viaduct being s170
heritage listed.
115 4.2.20
4.2.20 Non-Aboriginal heritage – RMS Response
This section discusses issues regarding the impact of a bridge location on the heritage
aspects of Grafton and South Grafton, including the existing bridge. The heritage aspect of
the bridge is dealt with in section 4.1.22.4
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 73
In terms of other heritage impacts, all options would have impacts on heritage values of
Grafton and/or South Grafton. The extent of this is dependent on the location of the
additional crossing, and the associated local road improvements. It is acknowledged the in
town options have a greater impact due to their location in the more developed parts of the
Grafton and South Grafton communities. Heritage impacts are only one of many criteria
used to compare options in terms of how they meet the project objectives.
A detailed assessment of heritage values in and around Grafton and South Grafton was
undertaken for the Technical Paper: Non-Aboriginal Heritage for the RODR. The
assessment included heritage register searches to identify any recorded cultural heritage
sites or items. Questions were raised in the submissions regarding the following properties.
The list below notes the impact on each property as assessed in the RODR:
36 Villiers Street is potentially directly affected by Options E and C and potentially
indirectly affected by Option A due to the upgrade of Pound and Villiers Street
intersection
The Sisters of Mercy property is potentially directly affected by Option E due to the
upgrade to the Villiers and Victoria Street intersection, and changing access
arrangements along the southern end of Villiers Street
Houses at the eastern end of Fitzroy Street which are identified as a group of
heritage items are potentially directly affected by Option A and potentially indirectly
affected by Option C
Houses at the end of Kent, Pound and Greaves Streets, sometimes referred to as the
Kent Street Group and are potentially directly affected by Option C
Dovedale at 1 Fry Street is potentially directly affected by Option 11
The SS Induna which lies in the Clarence River riverbed is potentially directly
affected by Option A
Dunvegan property is potentially directly affected by Option C and potentially
indirectly affected by Options E and A
The railway viaducts through the town of Grafton are indirectly affected by all options
Potential impacts on plantings of cultural significance were considered as part of the RODR.
The Technical Paper: Non-Aboriginal Heritage notes the contribution of trees as heritage
items as well as their collective effect on streetscape and setting. The loss of these trees
through road works is identified as an impact.
It is intended that once a preferred route is identified for the additional crossing, concept
design and environmental assessment would be undertaken, with one of the outcomes
seeking to minimise the impact on adjacent properties.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 74
4.2.21 Aboriginal heritage – submissions
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section
Addressed
Aboriginal heritage
1. Option 15 affects an Aboriginal Heritage site
“Tracker Robinson’s Camp” as well as being an
area of high potential for Aboriginal artefacts.
7,31 4.2.22.2
2. Option 11 has the least impact on Aboriginal
heritage
77 4.2.22.2
3. Great Marlow is significant to Aboriginal heritage
as it was the source of traditional food and
medicinal plants and Option 15 cuts through this
area.
P1, 113 4.2.22.2
4. Elizabeth Island has sacred significance and
should not be impacted on or used in any way.
P1 4.2.22.1
5. Option C would involve the relocation of the
Gummyaney Aboriginal Preschool community. It
is situated on Aboriginal Land and is significant to
the Aboriginal community.
111 4.2.6.1
6. All in town options have the highest impact on
Aboriginal heritage.
115 4.2.22.2
7. Impacting Aboriginal heritage is of great concern
with Option C Pound Street. The Golden Eel site
could be potentially impacted physically,
aesthetically and spiritually.
115 4.2.22.2
8. Impacts with downstream option on Aboriginal
heritage can be minimized and mitigated as has
occurred on Pacific Highway and regional RMS
projects, in particular, such as Ballina and
Kempsey.
115 4.2.22.2
4.2.22 Aboriginal heritage – RMS response
4.2.22.1 Elizabeth Island
It was noted in the PROR that Elizabeth Island is an Aboriginal men’s site with high
significance to the Aboriginal community. None of the six short-listed route options pass
over Elizabeth Island.
4.2.22.2 Other areas of known Aboriginal cultural heritage
RMS notes the potential impact of the project on areas of Aboriginal cultural heritage
significance. The RODR identifies the potential impact of Options 14 and 15 on the Great
Marlow area, with Option 15 also potentially impacting on “Tracker Robinson’s Camp” during
construction.
Option C is located in close proximity to the Golden Eel site (a spiritual area of high
significance to the Aboriginal people). In the RODR, Option C was identified as having
potential impacts on the Aboriginal cultural heritage of this area during construction. Should
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 75
Option C be identified as the preferred option, careful consideration would be required, in
consultation with the community, to the development and implementation of methodologies
to minimise any impacts on the site.
Further assessment of Aboriginal heritage would be undertaken during the concept design
and environmental assessment phase once a preferred option is identified. In the event that
an option is chosen which has been identified as having potential impacts on items or areas
of Aboriginal cultural or archaeological heritage, measures would need to be undertaken, in
consultation with the community, to protect and/ or minimise impacts on Aboriginal cultural or
archaeological heritage
4.2.23 Other environmental issues – submissions
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section
Addressed
Other environmental issues
1. Option 15 has the most merit if environmental and
land and creek scarring could be reduced or
eliminated.
76 4.2.24
2. High risk acid sulphate soils could be disturbed
during construction of options 14 or 15 and
reduce the river/groundwater quality during and
after the construction.
P1,113 4.2.24
3. The environmental disturbance downstream
would be significantly greater than upstream for
Options 14 and 15.
P1,113 4.2.24
4. Option C would have considerable environmental
impacts.
110 4.2.18.3 &
4.2.22.2
5. Impacts with downstream options, such as
aboriginal heritage, environmental, acid sulphate,
flooding, etc can be minimized and mitigated as
has occurred on Pacific Highway and regional
RMS projects, in particular, such as Ballina and
Kempsey.
115 4.2.24
6. Option E could affect Susan Island in the long
term, as the island is moving slowly downstream.
42 4.2.24
4.2.24 Other environmental issues – RMS response
All options would have some degree of ecological impact. It is noted in the RODR that
Options 14 and 15 would have the greatest impact on EECs as these options pass through
rural and semi-rural areas in Grafton and South Grafton which contain drainage soaks, some
of which conform to the freshwater wetlands on the coastal floodplain EEC. Options 14 and
15 would also have the greatest impact on other vegetation and habitat and are noted to
potentially impact a breeding colony area for the cattle egret. Other environmental impacts
such as Aboriginal heritage, non-Aboriginal heritage and landscape and urban character are
discussed in further detail in the RODR and technical papers.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 76
The movement of Susan Island is a natural function of the erosion and deposition of the river
and is likely to continue regardless of any of the bridge options. The rate of movement of the
Island is controlled by a number of factors which include the depth and flow of the river
(including large flood events) and the supply of material (rock and soil). Option E would be
unlikely to substantially change these factors. Historical maps from the last 150 years
suggest that there has not been significant movement of the island over the last 150 years.
Option E is located approximately 250m downstream of the Susan Island and as such it is
unlikely that during normal river levels the local scour of the bridge piers would affect the
island. Scour assessments to estimate general scour of the river channel and local scour
around piers would be undertaken during the concept design and environmental assessment
phase once a preferred option is identified. Option E would be designed to minimise scour at
piers and abutments due to larger flood events and to take into account the geomorphology
of the river.
Further to these issues, RMS received submissions expressing concern with acid sulphate
soils (ASS), and the potential for environmental damage if these were disturbed. RMS
guidelines for Management of Acid Sulphate Soils are consistent with the relevant state
management guidelines. The RMS guidelines would be applied during the construction of
the preferred route for the additional crossing of the Clarence River in Grafton to ensure
construction in areas where there is potential ASS would be managed appropriately to
minimise environmental harm.
4.3 Cost benefit analysis and value for money
4.3.1 Cost benefit analysis– submissions
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section
Addressed
Cost benefit and value for money
1. Options 14 and 15 are significantly more
expensive by approximately $100 million and
would be used by half as much as the other
options.
7,22,31,P1, 104, 107 4.3.2
2. Costs of 14 and 15 could escalate when
geotechnical issues are further investigated
including settlement and acid sulphate soils.
7,31 4.3.2
3. Option A has a reasonable cost benefit ratio and
is more readily approved.
22 4.3.2
4. Options A, C and E do not meet the needs of the
wider community.
23 4.1.2.1 & 4.3.2
5. Option 11 is better for all road users and does not
require a Prince Street upgrade.
30 4.1.2.1 & 4.3.2
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 77
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section
Addressed
Cost benefit and value for money
6. Option C is the best value for money. Located at
the narrow part of the river keeping costs down.
33,70 4.3.2
7. Option 11 second best after 14 and 15. 38 4.3.2
8. Pacific Highway intersection for access to option
11 exists.
44 4.1.6.1 & 4.1.6.2
9. The cost of Options E, A, C and 11 would be far
higher when property resumption and slowing of
current road use is considered.
60 4.3.2
10. Option A is the least costly and more readily
approved.
75 4.3.2
11. Option E would cost less than the other options. 77 4.3.2
12. The RMS has not presented a robust business
case for the project.
84 4.3.2
13. The use of large estimates of vehicle growth rates
has led to overestimates of benefits from any new
bridge.
84 4.1.16.1 &
4.1.16.6
14. The economic analysis undertaken does not allow
realistic comparison of options. The model
assumes that vehicle users do not adapt to travel
conditions and there is a hypothetical gridlock.
84 4.1.16.1 & 4.3.2
15. RMS policy requires a benefit cost ratio of at least
2:1 before investing public funds. The BCRs for
this project do not meet this.
84 4.3.2
16. Option 11 has a very positive BCR and equivalent
with some of the cheaper options. This option
could be seen as a balanced option.
38 4.3.2
17. On a fair economic assessment basis this is a
marginal project at best and other non-structural
approaches need to be applied.
84 4.3.2
18. Doubt benefit of upgrading the Villiers St viaduct
with any of the downstream options. Normal 6
axle semi-trailers could use the downstream
options (11, 14 or 15) and the old bridge.
89 4.1.2.1, 4.1.4.1
& 4.1.14.3
19. Believe that State and Federal Government
funding to commence construction of a second
bridge should be secured as soon as possible.
P2 4.3.2
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 78
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section
Addressed
Cost benefit and value for money
20. The 6 options cannot be compared. Options 14
and 15 are strictly alternative access bypass
routes with a longer road network, to meet future
growth and demands and the rest (A, E, C and
11) are in town options. Different ancillary works
are costed in each proposal.
115 4.1.16.1,
4.1.16.5 & 4.3.2
4.3.2 Cost benefit analysis – RMS response
The strategic cost estimates include allowances and contingency for:
Concept development (based on the engineering drawings presented in the RODR
Detailed design and documentation
Geotechnical conditions including depth to rock and soft soil treatments
Property acquisition costs (acquisition was identified via Geographic Information
System (GIS) and estimated via historical property sales within the immediate area)
Utility adjustment costs (cost allowances were estimated based on adjustments that
may be required for major utilities potentially impacted by each of the route options)
Infrastructure construction costs (which includes costs for flood mitigation)
Handover costs.
Ground settlement associated with embankments may be an issue with Options 11, 14 and
15 and some ground improvement may be required. However, these issues are considered
manageable and contingency allowances have been included in the strategic cost estimates.
In relation to the costs for each of the options, Options 14 and 15 have strategic cost
estimates of $304M and $340M respectively, with Options E, A, C and 11 costing between
$210M and $231M.
Options 14 and 15 are appreciably more costly than the other options due primarily to the
longer bridge and viaduct lengths required.
Options E and 11 are the least costly options. While the total bridge and viaduct costs are
slightly more expensive than for Options A and C, property acquisition costs are appreciably
less.
Options A and C costs are similar, approximately $20 million more than Options E and 11,
but still appreciably less than Options 14 and 15. Property acquisition costs and public utility
adjustments are higher for Options A and C. Option C also has higher drainage costs
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 79
because of the additional drainage infrastructure required where it passes under the rail
viaduct at Pound Street.
Long term modelling shows that Options E, A and C would perform better than Options 14
and 15 over the long term by reducing in-town congestion. The traffic modelling undertaken
for the additional crossing indicates that in 2049 only 36% of traffic would use Option 14,
with a predicted 35% using Option 15.
Option 11 has the highest Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of all options. Option 11 has a BCR of
1.7, compared to 1.6 for Options E and C and 1.3 for Option A. Options 14 and 15 have the
lowest BCR of 1.0 and 0.9 respectively. A BCR that is greater than 1 indicates that the road
user benefits exceed the costs.
The RMS Economic Analysis Manual, Version 2 (RMS 1999) does suggest a value of 2.0 as
the cut-off value for a BCR. However, in practice RMS uses BCR as just one of a number of
tools guiding the analysis, ranking and funding of RMS projects, and a minimum BCR value
of 2.0 (or even 1.0) is not a fixed prerequisite. For example not all costs and benefits can be
quantified in a road user cost benefit analysis, and issues such as equity or a reduction of
fatalities, etc. may take precedence over economic worth in decision-making. The BCR is
only one criteria used to decide on a preferred option for the additional crossing of the
Clarence River in Grafton.
With regard to funding, the purpose of this project is to identify an additional crossing of the
Clarence River at Grafton to address short-term and long-term transport needs. The
indicative timing for the opening of the bridge is 2019, with construction to commence by
2015. This timeframe would depend on the availability of funding.
4.4 Consultation process
4.4.1 Consultation process – submissions
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section
Addressed
Consultation
1. Uncertainty related to lack of preferred option is of
concern.
11 4.4.2
2. Should survey people travelling to and from or
tracking companies driving through Grafton about
whether they would use option 14 and 15 even
though the existing bridge would remain.
28 4.4.2
3. RMS has the knowledge and expertise and
should make the decision.
61,81 4.4.2
4. The process has taken too long, just make a
decision.
62,68 4.4.2
5. Community consultation cannot result in a
unanimous decision, frustrates the community
and wastes time and money and resources.
74 4.4.2
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 80
Issue raised in submission Submission number Section
Addressed
Consultation
6. The consultation on the bridge has divided the
Grafton community with adverse consequences.
All proposed options result in the loss of homes
and businesses for some people and a larger
number would be seriously inconvenienced or
would suffer anxiety and uncertainty for many
years.
84 4.4.2
7. The construction of a second bridge across the
Clarence River has been an issue of concern to
the community for many years.
P2 4.4.2
8. The community has maintained a preference for a
second bridge downstream of the existing bridge
or at Elizabeth Island with access near or at North
Street since 2003.
P2 4.4.2
9. Was unable to provide details of concerns at the
public forum because of restricted time.
110 4.4.2
10. The relevant strategies and reports in the RODR
have not been fully addressed and considered
and cannot be until a preferred option is
identified.
115 4.4.2
11. Input from trucking companies to the Heavy
Vehicle Survey were incomplete, including no
input from the company delivering to the large
supermarket chains in Grafton CBD.
P2 4.4.2
Value Management Study
1. Only people in Grafton and South Grafton who
are affected by an option could apply.
7 4.4.2
4.4.2 Consultation process – RMS response
RMS understands the difficulties being experienced by the community due to the uncertainty
regarding the location of the additional crossing, particularly those within the community
whose homes or businesses are potentially directly affected by one or more of the six short-
listed options. RMS is working as quickly as possible to identify a preferred option while
ensuring that the process is thorough and robust.
Submissions were received criticising the timeframes, the extent of information prepared for
the project and the perception that RMS just needs to make a decision. As the project is very
important to the Grafton community, there is a high level of community interest in it. It is
important that the six route options are thoroughly investigated to ensure all potential
impacts and constraints have been properly considered.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 81
RMS aims to finalise the decision as soon as possible, while also ensuring the assessment
underpinning this decision is thorough and robust.
It is anticipated that a recommended preferred option will be identified in late 2012. Once a
recommended preferred option is announced, there will be further consultation before
finalising the preferred location for the second bridge. Information prepared as part of the
RODR, Recommended Preferred Route Option Report and the Preferred Route Option
Report will be used to inform further work on the concept design and environmental
assessment for the preferred option.
RMS acknowledges that all options would have impacts on various parts of the community
depending on where the bridge is located. Further, there are a wide range of views about
the location of a second bridge, as shown in the initial consultation period where a total to 41
suggestions for the additional crossing were identified.
In relation to nominations to attend the Value Management workshop. These were open to
members of the public who were potentially affected by, or in the vicinity of, one of the six
short-listed options, or a regular bridge user. In the latter group, nominees could come from
anywhere providing they were a regular bridge user.
RMS consulted a wide range of stakeholders and the community during the route option
selection process. This included a range of freight and public transport operators. A full
overview of the consultation process is included in section 2 of this report. As part of this,
RMS issued widespread invitations to the community to attend the community forums,
staffed displays and information sessions and to lodge submissions and contact the project
team. Members of the transport industry were included in these invitations.
RMS considers that adequate and appropriate invitations have been provided to the
community and stakeholders within the Grafton area to attend the community forums, staffed
displays and information sessions and to lodge submissions and contact the project team.
In late 2011, RMS contacted the Clarence Valley Transport Committee as part of the
process to identify representatives of the freight and public transport operators to attend a
Community and Stakeholder Evaluation Workshop in November 2011. Following receipt of
advice from the committee, RMS invited representatives of Herb Blanchard Haulage Pty Ltd
and Busways Group Pty Ltd to attend the workshop on behalf of the freight and public
transport industries respectively. Mr Robert Blanchard attended the workshop as a
representative of the freight transport industry and Mr Chris Webb attended the workshop as
a representative of the public transport industry.
Representatives of Herb Blanchard Haulage and Busways were also invited to attend the
Value Management Workshop on behalf of the freight and public transport industries
respectively.
Detailed traffic studies have been undertaken to analyse heavy vehicle movements in and
around Grafton. The combination of the studies undertaken and the information received as
part of the consultation process, is considered appropriate to provide RMS and its
consultants a thorough understanding of heavy vehicles in and around Grafton.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 82
4.5 Summary of responses to feedback
All options have potential impacts relating to the location of the additional crossing.
The project purpose is to identify an additional crossing of the Clarence River at Grafton to
address short-term and long-term transport needs. This will need to consider which options
provide the best balance overall between functional, social, environmental, value for money
and cost considerations.
Any option identified as the preferred location for the additional crossing of the Clarence
River in Grafton would undergo a concept design and environmental assessment phase
which would investigate measures to mitigate impacts identified for the project.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 83
5 Summary of other community feedback
5.1 Summary of online comments
The online community forum commenced on Monday 10 September and closed on
Wednesday 10 October 2012. The online forum was created to allow informal discussion on
the options. http://haveyoursay.nsw.gov.au/graftonbridge
In total 64 comments were posted by 18 users.
Generally the issues raised reflect those made in formal submissions. Contradictory views
on the impact of the different options on congestion in the Grafton CBD and on the
effectiveness of providing an out of town crossing were raised in the online comments.
A general concern with the safety, noise and amenity issues relating to large vehicle
movements through the urban area was evident. The aesthetic impact of new bridges was a
matter of interest, especially in the context of the tourist value of the existing ‘bendy bridge’.
There was also consistent interest in maintaining the heritage value of, and tourist interest in,
the city. The potential for flooding of the railway viaduct underpass under option C was
raised in a number of posts. Concerns were raised about the occasional diversion of traffic
through the Grafton CBD (along Summerland Way) across the existing bridge following
closure of the Pacific Highway. No clear consensus on a preferred option is evident.
5.2 Summary of informal feedback at staffed displays
About 225 community members attended the staffed displays and information sessions.
Project staff received a range of comments and questions about the project, the process
moving forward to identify a preferred option and the six route options.
Where individuals asked for feedback to be captured as a formal submission, these have
been collated in this report.
5.3 Overview of the public forums
The first public forum was held on Tuesday 18 September 2012 from 6pm to 9pm at the
Grafton Community Centre. The public forum was facilitated. Project team members,
including RMS, Arup and specialist consultants presented information about the project and
an overview of the technical studies that underpinned the RODR. The PowerPoint
presentations were made available on the project website after the forums.
Some community groups made brief presentations. Members of the audience were able to
ask questions of the project team and community presenters. About 90 people were in
attendance.
A second public forum was held on Tuesday 9 October from 6pm to 8pm at the Grafton
Community Centre. The public forum was also facilitated. The RMS Project Manager
presented an update on the project including a demonstration of the traffic visualisation
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 84
videos. The PowerPoint presentation and traffic visualisation videos were made available on
the website after the forum.
Community groups also presented at the forum. Members of the audience were able to ask
questions of the team and community presenters. About 40 people were in attendance.
Both the public forums were filmed and are available on the project website.
5.4 Value management workshop
A Value Management Workshop was held on Tuesday 23 and Wednesday 24 October 2012.
This was a facilitated forum where participants reviewed and assessed options for a project
against agreed assessment criteria. The options are then evaluated against each criterion.
The workshop was a key input onto to the identification of a recommended preferred option
which is expected to the placed on display for community comment by the end of 2012.
6 Next steps
The process to identify a preferred option is shown in the flowchart overleaf.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 85
Figure 3 The process to identify a preferred option.
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 86
Appendix A
Summary of Community Consultation Activities for the RODR
Staffed displays At the staffed displays the project team representatives (RMS and Arup) were available to take feedback and answer questions. Copies of the Community Update and RODR were available to pick up. Displays were held at the following locations: Grafton Shoppingworld 13 September and 4 October 2012, from 10am to 5pm Information displays These were informal sessions where members of the project team were available to talk one on one with the community. Large scale posters of the route options and maps from the RODR were available for discussions. Community members could ask questions, provide feedback for recording by staff, pick up a community update and request full copies of the RODR or pick up a version on CD. Information displays were held at the following locations: Grafton Community Centre 19 September 2012, from 11am to 2pm and 3pm to 6pm South Grafton Ex-Servicemen’s Club 25 September 2012, from 10am to 2pm Static displays Static (unstaffed) displays were placed on public exhibition from 10 September 2012 at the locations listed below. These included posters illustrating the route options, community event information and copies of the Community Update and at limited locations display reports.
Roads and Maritime Services Pacific Highway Office, 21 Prince Street, Grafton
Roads and Maritime Services Motor Registry Office, 3 King Street, Grafton
Roads and Maritime Services Regional Office, 31 Victoria Street, Grafton
Grafton Council Chambers and Grafton Library, 2 Prince Street, Grafton
Ulmarra Petrol Station/Post Office, Pacific Highway, Ulmarra
South Grafton News and Gifts, 38 Skinner Street, South Grafton
General Store Coutts Crossing, Armidale Road, Coutts Crossing
Junction Hill Family Store, 5 Casino Road, Junction Hill
Maclean Council Office, 50 River Street, Maclean
Yamba Library, Wooli Street, Yamba Public forums
A public forum on the short-listed options was scheduled to be held at 6pm Tuesday 18
September 2012 at the Grafton Community Centre. The forum was set-up to provide
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 87
community stakeholders with an opportunity to express their views on the short-listed
options.
A briefing session for the community presenters at the forum was held on Friday 14
September 2012. In response to requests from the community representatives at the briefing
session, RMS agreed to:
Alter the public forum on the evening of Tuesday 18 September to provide more time
for the project team to outline the results of the investigations into the short-listed
options.
Hold a second public forum on the evening of Tuesday 9 October to provide
community stakeholders with an opportunity to comment on the short-listed options.
Extend the closing date for submissions to Friday 12 October.
Talk back radio A radio forum was held on Thursday 10 October 2012 from 9am on 2GF radio station. The following panel presenters participated in the forum:
RMS Project Director, Bob Higgins and RMS Project Manager, Chris Clark.
Arup traffic consultant Gerard Cavanagh.
Independent traffic reviewer Professor John Black, from the Institute of Environmental Studies, University of NSW.
Representative from the Grafton Chamber of Commerce, James Patterson.
Representative from the trucking industry, Robert Blanchard from Blanchard's Haulage.
Representative from the Grafton Ngerrie Local Aboriginal Land Council, Brett Tibbett.
Community members were invited to call into the radio station with questions.
Moderated online forum An online forum was provided to facilitate discussion about the merits of each option. Participants were able to lodge their comments as submissions on the options. This forum operated from 10 September 2012 to 10 October 2012. Advertising The exhibition of the RODR was advertised in the newspapers, on the radio and via a variable message signage on display near the Grafton Bridge for the length of the exhibition period. Newspapers and publication dates included: Advertisement 1 Grafton Daily Examiner 11, 13, 15, 20 and 22 September Yamba Clarence Valley Review 12 and 19 September Maclean Coastal View 14 and 21 September Advertisement 2 Grafton Daily Examiner 27, 29 September Yamba Clarence Valley Review 26 September Maclean Coastal View 28 September
Route Options Submissions Report December 2012 88
Traffic modelling videos From 24 September 2012 traffic modelling videos were made available on the project website. These illustrated peak hour travel across each proposed bridge option for the years 2011, 2019 and 2049. These were announced:
by email mail out to people who had registered their interest in the project; and
on the radio forum.
These were also shown at the second public forum. Website The website listed community events and displays, message updates from the project manager, key documents, the online forum and the traffic modelling videos as well as providing a complete project history and access to previous community and project documents. Project email A project email was maintained throughout the project and exhibition period. Enquiries and comments were acknowledged and responses provided as soon as technical investigations allowed. Project telephone number A toll free project number was maintained throughout the project and exhibition period. Phone calls were received by Id Planning staff and answered promptly. Project team members responded to technical enquires as required. Project database All contact with the project team was logged in the project database, provided by Consultation Manager. RODR submissions Submissions on the RODR were received:
at staffed information displays, recorded by the project team
by mail or hand delivery
by email
via the online forum
by telephone to the project office and 1800 number Each submission was logged registered, given a unique number and included in Consultation Manager. It was also summarised in this report. Value Management Nominations Nominations were received in person, by hand, by mail, telephone and email and registered by the project team.
Appendix 2 – Value Management Option Selection Workshop Report